/ 


tfltrs 


Bap 


1 

1 



. 

! 

1 

1 

£5 

Q. 

1 

•5r 

# 

O- 

$ 

0) 

1 

$  * 

_5 

! 

o 

$ 

0) 

c 

I 

&       m 

"<U 

^ 

o 

D 

CO 

2E 

£ 

1 

Ok 

. 

^ 

-o 

O 

% 

c 

^ 

CL 

1 

i 

. 

TW1   ■  VE    BETTERS 


A1)  DRESSED    TO 


Ref.  SAMUEL  AUSTIN,  a,  m. 


IN    WHICH 


HIS   VINDICATION   OF    PARTIAL  WASHING 
FOR  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM, 


CONTAINED    IN 


TEN   LETTERS, 

t 

?S   REVIEWED   AND  DISPROVED: 


BY  DANIEL*MERRILL,  A,  M. 

PASTOR.    OF    THE    CHURCH    OF    CHXliiT    IN    SEDGWICK, 


In  v'-i  dr.  they  worflup  me,  teaching  Tor  doctrines  the  commandments 
of  .  len,  Jesus   Chk  i  .  r. 

Wo  unto  you,  lawyers  !  for  ye  have  taken  away  the  hey  of  knowlc 
ye  entered  not  in  yourfe'ves,  and  them  that  were  entering  in  ye  hiu- 
dered.  Its  us  Christ.. 


BOSTON : 

PRINTEJ    AVTD     SOLD    »BY     MAMNIXG    &    LORIKG, 
NO.    2>    CORNHILL..,.. ,1806. 


District  of  Massachusetts,  to  <wit. 

BE  IT  REMEMBERED,  that  on  the  eleventh  day  of  April,  in  the 
thirtieth  year  of  the  independence  of  the  United  States  of  America, 
Manning  £?  Lor  i  ng,  of  the  laid  diftrift,  have  depofited  in  this 
office  the  title  of  a  Book,  the  right  whereof  they  claim  ^.s  Proprietors, 
in  the  words  following,  to  wit: — "Twelve  Letters,  addrefled  to  Rev. 
Samu  e  i  At"  st  i  n,  A.  M.  in  which  his  Vindication  of  Partial  Warn- 
ing for  Chriftian  Baptifm,  contained  in  Ten  Letters,  is  reviewed  and 
dilproved.  By  Daniel  Me  r  ri  ll,  A.  M.  Paftar  of  the  Church  of 
Chrift  in  Sedgwick." 

In  conformity  to  the  Aft  of  the  Congrefs  of  the  LTnited  vStates,  entitled, 
rt  An  Aft  for  the  Encouragement  of  Learning,  by  fecuring  the  Copies 
of  Maps,  Charts,  and  Books,  to  the  Authors  and  Proprietors  of  fuch 
Copies  during  the  Times  therein  mentioned  ;"  and  alfo  to  an  Aft, 
entitled,  "  An  Aft  fupplementary  to  an  Aft,  entitled,  '*  An  Aft  for  the 
Encouragement  of  Learning,  by  fecuring  the  Copies  of  Maps,  Chairs*, 
and  Books,  to  the  Authors  and  Proprietors  of  fuch  Copies,  during  the 
Times  therein  mentioned;'  and  extending  the  Benefits  thereof  to  the 
Arts  of  Deligning,  Engraving,  and  Etching  Hiftorical  and  other  Prints." 

N.  GOODALE,  Clerk  oj  the  DiJlriB  of Majac/iufctts. 

A  true  Copy  of  Record.    Attefl : 

N.  Goobale,  Clerk* 


*yo  the  Ghridtlan  &l&acl$r> 


WHATEVER  be  your  denomina- 
tion, your  wifdom  is,  to  feek  the  knowledge 
and  pra&ice  of  the  truth.  In  the  following 
Letters  you  will  find  difcuffed  fome  of  the 
mod  important  articles  of  the  Chriftian  re- 
ligion :  fome  of  the  great  and  leading  points 
in  which  Jcfus,  as  Captain  of  the  Lord's  hoft, 
afferts  his  kingly  authority,  are  fet  to  view  ; 
as  well  as  fome  of  thofe  in  which  Antichrift 
afferts  his  authority,  are  expofed.  The  higrw 
ly  interefting  contention,  at  the  prefent,  is, 
who  fhall  reign  over  us,  and  who  mail  give 
us  laws,  Chrift  or  Antichrift  !  The  Pope  and 
his  clergy,  and  all  who  are  in  part  or  whole 
blinded  by  the  fmoke,  the  errors,  which  came 
out  of  the  bottomlefs  pit,  Rev.  ix.  2.  fay  Anti- 
chrift's  authority,  in  whole  or  part,  is  founded 
in  the  word  of  God.  The  author  of  thefe 
pages  has  endeavoured  to  mow,  that  Antichrift 
hath,  for  his  ordinances  of  fprinkling,  &c.  no 
fupport  from  the  Revelation  of  Jefus  Chrift ; 
and  that  his  temporifmg,  defiling,  and  aBomi- 
nable  errors,  fo  far  as  they  concern  the  pref- 


IV 

ent  controverfy,  have  not  one  paflage,  from 
Genefis  to  Revelation,  in  their  favour. 

The  reader  will  find  a  fpirit  of  extermina- 
tion manifefted  againft  the  errors  of  Mr.  Auf- 
tin  :  but  the  reader  is  deli  red  not  to  feel  in 
his  own  breaft,  nor  to  fuppofe  that  the  author 
poffeffed  in  his,  the  fame  fpirit  towards  Mr.. 
Auftin's  perfon  or  chara&er,  which  is  exprefl- 
ed  towards  his  errors.  The  author  takes  lib- 
erty to  aflure  every  perfon  into  whofe  hands 
this  pamphlet  may  fall,  that  he  hath  no  con- 
temptible idea  of  Mr.  Auftin's  character  or 
talents  ;  nor  is  he  without  ftrong  hopes  that 
Mr.  Auftin  is,  generally  fpeaking,  a  cordial 
friend  to  truth,  notwithstanding  he  hath  em- 
braced and  laboured  to  vindicate  feveral  very 
hurtful  and  bewildering  errors.  All  God's 
children  have  not  as  yet  obeyed  the  heavenly 
command,  to  come  out  from  the  man  of  fin, 
from  Antichrift,  to  touch  not  the  unclean 
thing,  and  be  feparate. 

Whilfi  Mr.  Auftin,  and  many  others,  who 
have  left  the  dodrines  of  the  man  of  fin,  are 
yet  bewildered  by  fome  of  his  ordinances,  we 
are  not  to  count  them  as  enemies,  but  to  ad- 
moniih  them  as  friends,  and  be  ever  ready  to 
embrace  them,  the  moment  in  which  they 
will  obey  our  King,  and  come  out,  and  touch 
not  the  abominations  of  the  mother  of  harlots. 

There  are  many  who  will  not  enter  into 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  themfelves,  and  thofe 
who  are  entering  in  by  Chrift's  gofpei  ordi- 


nance,  baptifm,  they  hinder.*  In  this  matter 
they  defile  themfelves,  and  are  yet  with  the 
man  of  fin,  who  ftill  hinders  the  full  glory  of 
the  church. 

Reader,  if  you  will  not  be  baptized  your- 
felf,  and  thus  enter  into  the  vifible  church, 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  on  earth,  be  careful 
how  you  hinder  thofe  who  are  entering  in. 
ChrifVs  kingdom  muft  come,  and  it  will  come: 
be  careful,  left  you  be  found  even  to  fight 
againft  God. 

If  the  errors  of  fprinkling  for  baptifm,  un- 
believers for  the  fubjects,  and  unbaptized  per- 
fons  for  church  members,  be  not  of  Chrift,  but 
of  the  world,  reject  them  as  felicks  of  And- 
chrift.  The  following  Letters,  if  read  with  a 
prayerful,  teachable  fpirit,  will  fhow  that  the 
above  are  errors,  not  being  found  in  the  gof- 
pel  of  Chrift,  but  being  contrary  from  the 
word  of  the  Son  of  God. 

Reader,  are  you  a  Chriftian,  and  yet  un- 
willing to  know  the  laws  of  your  King  !  Do 
you  find  that  within  you  there  are  ftrong  pre- 
judices, and  the  rifiiigs  of  a  corrupt  mind, 
againft  hearing  and  prattiiing  as  the  more 
noble  Bereans  did,  when  Paul  was  the  preach- 
er ?  For  Zion's  fake,  for  truth's  fake,  and  for 
your  own  fake,  remember  that  the  wrath  of 
man  worketh  not  the  righteoufnefs  of  God. 
Have  courage  and  refolution  enough  to  hear 
and  know  the  truth,  and  pra&ife  it  when 
known. 


Praying  that  the  God  and  Father  of  our 
Lord  Jefus  Chrift  may  give  you  to  fee  the 
rifing  church,  as  now  xoming  up  from  the 
wildernefs,  mowing  herfelf  in  gofpel  beauty 
and  fimplicity,  and  to  efpoufe  her  caufe  with 
your  whole  heart, 

I  am,  reader, 

your's  and  the  church's 
willing  fervant, 

The  AUTHOR. 

fts-Bowic-Kt  December  35,  1805. 


Wt— WMWAWJt    B.MUHH 


-    -.- 

LETT  E  k  S    t 

; 

TO 

The' Rev.  SAMUEL   AUSTIN, 


LETTER   I. 


V  E  R  F.  N  D 


WITH  pain  and  pleafure  I  continue  in  the  field  of 
theological  controverfy.  It  is  painful  to  me,  that 
the  time,  talents,  and  zeal  of  good  men,  mould  be  occupied 
to  give  currency  and  continuance  to  error.  In  the  mean 
time,  it  is  grateful  to  my  feelings  to  difcover  the  fame  good 
men  relinquifliing,  by  little  and  little,  their  indefenfible 
ground.  The  conceflions  and  profeffion,  which  are  found- 
in  your  Letters  to  me,  furnifh  hope  that  you  will  yet  dif- 
cover truth  and  embrace  it. 
You  concede, 
i.  That  the  prefent  controverfy  cannot  be  fettled  by  an 
appeal  to  the  Greeks  or  Romans ;  to  the  monk  of  Paleftine, 
Jerome  ;  to  the  reformer  of  Geneva,  or  to  the  Englifh  de- 
fender of  the  Baptiiis  ;  or  even  by  an  appeal  to  church  hif- 
tory,  or  to  any  other  writings  which  are  merely  human.* 

2.  That  when  baptifm  was  introduced  among  the  Jews, 
in  the  days  of  John,  and  in  the  days  of  Chrift  and  his  apof- 
tles,  it  was  not  administered  to  infants  ;  and  that  the  evi- 
dence for  infant  baptifm  docs  not,  in  our  day,  amount  to 
demonftration.j" 

3.  You  concede,  that  the  Bible  is  the  only  book  by  which 
the  prefent  controverfy  mmt  be  fettled.^- 

4.  You  concede,  that  cur  Englifh  tranflation  of  the  Bible 
is  fo  perfect,  that  every  argument,  which  is  founded  in  any 
degree  upon  a  different  tranflation  than  what  is  found  in  our 
common  Bibles,  "  has  an  objection  at  its  foundation." § 

*  Pages  66,  10;  of  the  Letters  to  the  author. 
|<  Pages  7,  75,  I  .Page  108.  §.  Page  7a.- 


I  .  Letters  to  Rev,  Mr.  Auftln.         [Let.  I. 

Tnis  Lai  concdTion  has  its  importance,  not  as  it  refpects 
either  you  or  me,  but  as  it  refpects  common  readers,  that 
they  may  red  fatisrkd  that  the  prefent  translation  is  fufH- 
ciently  accurate  and  explicit.  Some  other  conceffions  I  may 
-mention,  as  the  fubject  (hall  require. 

Your  profeffion,  Sir,  is  excellent,  and  worthy  of  a  Chrif- 
tian,  in  every  cqnteft.  It  is  this:  "As  for  me,  I  confider 
truth  infinitely  preferable  to  any  party  intereft,  and  promife 
to  you,,  that  I  will  yield  to  evidence  as  foon  as  it  is  prefented." 

It  is  now  expedient  that  I  notice  another  conceflion,  which 
you  give  to  the  public,  in  page  7  of  your  Letters  ;  and  in 
the  following  words: — "Through  the  mod  of  my  miniftry, 
though  I  prevailingly  believed  that  the  doctrine  and  practice 
of  the  Pa:dobaptiPis,  generally  confidered,  were  authorized 
in  the  Scriptures,  I  had  not  that  full  ccnv'iBion  on  thefe points 
which  I  had  refpecting  many  other  articles.  It  is  not  more 
than  three  years,  fmce  by  fome  particular  incidents,  my 
attention  was  called  up  afrefh  to  the  fubject :  I  then  deter- 
mined to  inveftigate  it  as  clofely  as  my  abilities  would  allow  : 
T  accordingly  examined  the  Scriptures  from  beginning  to 
tnd — got  into  my  hands  and  read  all  the  publications  on  the 
fubject  which  I  could  command,  and  the  refult  of  my  in- 
quiries was  juft  the  reverfe  of  yours.  It  appears  to  me  that 
no  determinate  mode  of  applying  water  in  baptifm  was  clearly 
pointed  out  in  the  Scriptures,  or  made  eflential  to  the  valid- 
ity of  the  ordinance." 

This  conceffion  of  yours,  Sir,  together  with  its  irTue,  in- 
clines me  to  relate'to  you,  in  this  place,  and  through  you  to 
the  public,  fome  of  the  providences  which  led  to  my  convic- 
tion, and  in  the  refult,  to  my  converfion  from  fome  of  my 
errors. 

For  nearly  ten  years  after  I  entertained  fome  hope  that  I 
was  born  of  the  Spirit,  I  do  not  recollect  of  its  being  once 
fuggefted  to  my  mind,  that  there  was  any  confiderable  diffi- 
culty in  fuppprting  iprinkling  for  baptifm,  and  infants  for 
the  fubjects.  In  the  year  1790,  whilft  in  purfuit  of  theo- 
logical knowledge,  1  had  put  into  my  hands  a  fhort  hiftory 
of  infant  baptifm,  written  by  a  gentleman  in  New  York. 
This  pamphlet  produced  its  witneffes  for  infant  baptifm, 
century  preceding  century,  till  it  came  nearly  to  the  apof- 
tolic  age  ;  but  it  left  a  blank,  as  all  other  hiilories  of  the 
fame  kind  have  done,  between  the  period  in  which  we  firft 
hear  of  infant  baptifm,  and  the  apoilles.  This  deficiency  of 
hiltoric  evidence  I  lenlibly  felt.  This  chain  of  evidence  was 
at  the  time  quite  pleaiing  to  me,  fo  far  as  it  went ;  but  it 


Let.  I.]         Ifeffitti  t6  Sk\  Mr.  Auftin.  9 

wanted  a  few  more  links  to  reach  to  the  apoftles,  fo  as  to 
unite  their  practice  and  ours  together  :  however,  the  author 
did  as  well  as  he  could,  in  the  caufe  which  he  was  labouring 
to  defend.  I  was  now  left  to  believe,  without  evidence,  if  I. 
could,  that  infant  baptifm  came  down,  in  regular  fucceiTion, 
from  the  apoftles  to  us.  This  I  believed.  Not  only  fo,  but 
I  confidered  infant  baptiim  a  Bible  doctrine,  though  not 
quite  fo  explicitly  expreifed  as  I  could  have  wii'hed.  From 
this  time  I  had  occafionally  ibme  fmall  difficulties  ;  but  they 
were,  for  the  moft  part,  but  quite  fmall,  and  of  fhort  contin- 
uance. The  Bible  I  believed  to  be  fall  of  the  doctrine  of 
infant  baptiim,  though  1  knew  of  no  particular  place  which 
was  fully  to  the  point.  I  confidered  it  to  be  a  very  lingular 
thirtg,  that  we  had  no  example  of  infant  baptifm.  Said  I 
to  myfelf,  Had  there  been  one  example,  it  would  have  put 
the  matter  beyond  a  doubt.  Whether  example  or  not,  it  ill 
I  concluded  it  mull  be  a  Bible  doctrine  :  for  I  fupprrfed  that 
the  greatest  of.  men.  that  the  wiieit  of  men,  and  that  the  moft 
learned  alfo,  had  always  practifed  it :  be  fides,  I  took  it  for 
granted  (for  there  was  no  evidence  for  it)-  that  baptifm  had 
iacceeded  circcmcifion,  and  that  the  fame  fubjects  which 
were  of  old  circumcifed,  weie  now  to  be  baptized.  More- 
over, there  are  feveral  paffages  of  the  New  Teitament,  which 
have  been  thought,  by  gteat,  good,  and  learned  men,  to 
favour  infant  baptifm.  1  thought  the  fame.  If  you,  Sir, 
will  have  patience  with  me,  I  v.  ill  mention  fome  of  thefe 
fcriptures,  and  especially  thole  which  I  viewed  as  cardinal 
texts  upon  the  fubjecl.  I  will  alfo  tell  you  how  I  then  un- 
derftood  them,  like  wife  what  are  my  prefent  thoughts  re= 
fpecting  them.  The  texts  which  were  confidered  to  be, 
more  than  any  other,  in  favour  of  infant  baptifm,  and  which 
appeared  fufficient  to  authorize  the  practice,  are  the  fol- 
lowing. 

1.  Mat.  xix.  13,  14,  i£.  *  Then  were  there  brought  unto 
him  little  children,  that  lie  fbould  put  his  hands  on  them, 
and  pray  ;  and  the  difciples  rebuked  them  :  but  Jefas  laid, 
Suffer  little  children,  and  forbid  them  not,  to  come  unto  me, 
for  of  fuch  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  And  he  laid  his 
hands  on  them,  and  departed  thence.' 

2.  The  parallel  text,  Mark  x.  13,  14,  15,  16.  'And  they 
brought  young  children  to  him,  that  he  fhould  touch  them  j 
and  his  difciples  rebuked  thofe  that  brought  them  :  but  when 
Jefus  faw  it  he  was  much  difpleafed,  and  faid  unto  them, 
Suffer  the  little  children  to  come  unto  me,  and  forbid  them 

b  2 


io  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Au/tin,         [Let.  I, 

not,  for  of  fuch  is  the  kingdom  of  God.  Verily  I  fay  unto- 
you,  Whofcever  (hall  not  receive  the  kingdom  of  God  as  a 
little  child,  he  {hall  not  enter  therein.  And  he  took  them 
up  in  his  arms,  put  his  hands  upon  them,  and  bleffed  them.' 

3.  The  fame  account,  as  related  by  Luke,  xviii.  15,  16,  17, 
was  thought  to  afford  fome  additional  light:.  Luke  fays, 
« They  brought  unto  him  alio  infants,  that  he  would  touch 
them  ;  but  when  his  difciples  faw  it,  they  rebuked  them  r 
but  Jefus  called  them  unto  him,  and  faid,  Suffer  little  chil- 
dren to  come  unto  me,  and  forbid  them  not,  for  of  fuch  is 
the  kingdom  of  God.  Verily  I  fay  unto  you,  Whofoever 
fhall  not  receive  the  kingdom  of  God  as  a  little  child,  fhall 
in  no  wife  enter  therein-' 

4.  Ads  ii.  39.  *  For  the  promife  is  unto  you,  and  to  your 
children,  and  to  all  that  are  afar  off,  even  as  many  as  the 
Lord  our  God  fhall  call.' 

5.  1  Cor.  vii.  14.  *  For  the  unbelieving  hufband  is  fancli- 
Hed  by  the  wife,  and  the  unbelieving  wife  is  fan&ifted  by  the 
hufband  >  elfe  were  your  children  unclean,  but  now  are  they 
holy.' 

Upon  thefe  texts  I  reafoned  in  the  following  manner. 

Little  children,  young  children,  and  infants  were  brought 
;o  Chrift  ;  he  approved  of  their  being  brought ;  he  was  dif- 
pleafed  with  fuch  as  forbade  them  ;  we  mould  bring  our 
children  to  him  ;  what  way  fo  fuitable  as  to  prefent  them 
in  baptifm  :  befides,  Chrilt  faid,  Of  fuch  is  the  kingdom  of 
heaven.  How  could  infants  be  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven, 
©therwife  than  by  being  baptized,  and  fo  admitted  members 
of  the  vifible  church  ?  It  was  alfo  my  thought,  that  the 
promife  mentioned  A  els  ii.  39.  was  the  fame  that  was  made 
to  Abraham,  Gen.  xvii.  :  and,  in  addition  to  the  above,  Paul 
tells  us,  that  when  one  of  the  parents  is  a  believer,  the  chil- 
dren are  holy.  Hence,  my  conclufion  was,  that  infant  bap- 
tifm was  warranted  by  Scripture,  when  not  One  of  the  texts 
fays  fo  much  as  a  word  about  baptifm  ;  but  each  one  relates 
to  quite  a  different  fubjeel,  as  you  may  fee  by  examining  the 
connexion  of  each. 

Should  more  evidence  be  required,  my  erroneous  judg- 
ment was,  that  houfehold  baptifm,  as  recorded  Acls  xvi. 
15  and  33.  and  1  Cor.  i.  16.  would  make  up  any  deficiency  ; 
when  in  neither  of  the  paffages  is  there  a  word  faid  of  any 
child  or  adult  being  baptized  upon  the  faith  of  another. 
Upon  this  foundation,  if  it  may  be  called  a  foundation,  my 
faith  with  refpeel  to  infant  baptifm,  or  with  refpeel  to  what 
is  tf  kite  years  fo  called,  refted,  with  little  interruption,  till 


Let.  II.]         Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aujiln.  1 1 

the  beginning  of  1799  ;  at  which  time  I  felt  fome  hefitancy 
as  to  ics  being  fuppoited  by  the  oracles  of  God. 

My  prefent  thoughts  with  refpecl:  to  the  above  texts,  you 
will  permit  me  to  deter  till  I  write  you  again  ;  and  in  the 
mean  time  believe  me  to  be 

Yours,  &c. 


LETTER   II. 


*  E  V  F/.END    SIR. 


IN  the  clofe  of  my  laft,  the  thought  was  fuggefted,  that 
my  mind  hefitated,  in  the  beginning  of  1799,  as  to  the 
validity  of  infant  baplifm  ;  it  did,  however,  preponderate  in 
its  favour.  But  in  the  winter  and  fpring  of  this  year,  a  new 
fcene  opened  to  view.  At  this  time  a  remarkable  and 
extenfive  reformation  took  place  xamong  my  people  ;  and 
among  the  converts,  there  were  not  leis  than  twenty  or  thirty 
who  were  diifatisfied  with  infant  baptifm,  and  many  of  them 
doubted  of  fprinkling  being  the  baptifm  of  the  gofpel.  It 
became  my  indifpenfable  duty  to  take  up  the  fubject,  and 
canvafs  it  as  well  as  I  could.  It  was  attempted  ;  but  I 
found  not  my  path  fo  clear  of  diificukies  as  it  was  wifhed  to 
be.  However,  my  ignorance  and  unbelief  fuftained  me  for 
the  time  :  and  by  not  under  Handing,  and  by  mifapplying 
Mark  vii.  4.  and  by  going  with  the  young  converts  to  the 
water,  and  there  partially  walhing  them  for  baptifm,  their 
minds  were  in  meafure  fatisfled.  At  the  fame  time,  they 
had  encouragement  that  the  fubject  of  baptifm  lhould 
be  foon  taken  under  confideration  again,  and  that  they 
might  expect  to  have  it  then  more  fully  and  fatisfaclorily 
explored.  Thus  the  matter  apparently  relied  with  them  ; 
but  my  own  mind  was  not  long  at  a  time  without  queries 
upon  the  iubject.  I  new  read  my  Bible  over  and  over  again  ; 
every  pamphlet  and  every  page  written  by  any  Paedobaptift, 
upon  infant  fprinkling,  I  read  with  eagernefs,  wherever  I 
could  find  it  ;  but  whenever  I  lit  upon  a  leaf  written  in 
favour  of  gofpel  baptifm,  I  either  neglected  it  wholly,  or 
read  it  with  prejudice.  My  object  was  not  fo  much  to  know 
what  baptifm  was,  as  to  prove  that  fprinkling  was  baptifm. 
I  purfued  this  fruitlefs  fearch  for  nearly  fix  years.  At  in- 
tervals my  mind  was  fatisfied,  largely  fo,  that  fprinkling,  or 
rather  that  partial  walhing,  was  gofpel  baptifm,  and  infants 


12  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aufthu         [Eet.  ir. 

the  proper  fubjecls  ;  as  fully  perfuaded  of  this  being  the 
cafe,  perhaps,  as  you  were,  arter  three  years  fearch.  My 
mind  almofl  perpetually  gave  judgment  in  favour  of  infant 
fprinkling,  and  feldom,  if  ever,  doubted  but  it  would  pafs 
for  baptifm.  I  was  willingly  ignorant  of  the  true  gofpel 
baptifm.  Not  only  was  I  willingly  ignorant,  but,  like  my 
Paedobaptift  brethren,  I  chofe  darknefs,  in  this  matter,  rather 
than  light.  I  was  much  like  them  alio  in  another  particu- 
lar, in  that  I  too  much  laid,  in  both  words  and  practice,  that 
any  application  of  water,  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jefus, 
was  baptiim  ;  and  that  there  was  no  determinate  way,  clear- 
ly pointed  out  in  the  Bible,  by  which  water  iliould  be  ap- 
plied. For  fprinkling,  as  being  gofpel  baptifm,  I  long  and 
vainly  fought ;  and  becaufe  I  could  not  find  it,  I  more  vain- 
ly concluded,  that  the  matter  was  all  left  at  fuch  loofe  ends 
that  nobody  could  know  ;  and  io  we  mail  praclife,  and  be 
agreed  about  the  matter  as  well  as  we  could.  However, 
my  mind  could  not,  for  a  long  period  at  a  time,  ie(l  in  this 
Hate  of  grofs  vlarkneis  and  ignorance.  Beiides,  my  people 
did  not  forget  my  encouragement,  that  the  fubject  of  baptiim 
fhould  be  again  taken  up,  and  more  fully  handled  ;  nor  did 
they  forget  to  remind  me  of  my  promife. 

But  the  more  I  ftudied  on  the  fubject,  the  more  I  difcov- 
ered  my  darknefs,  and  my  uilpreparednefs  to  treat  on  it 
publickly.  Whilit  fearching  every  where  for  data  to  prove 
iprinkling  or  partial  warning  to  be  baptiim,  it  uied  cccafion- 
ally  to  be  fogge&eel,  Who  are  gofpel  fu  bjecls  of  baptifm? 
This  became  to  me  a  ierious  queftion  in  the  year  1804. 
My  difficulty  was,  indeed,  not  fmall ;  yet  I  thought  myfelf 
justified  in  continuing  my  practice.  In  Auguft  of  this  year, 
juflf  before  the  adminiftration  of  infant  fprinkling,  this  text 
fomewhat  forcibly  ftruck  my  mind,  *  He  that  doubteth  is 
damned  if  he  eat.'  In  a  moment  the  following  thought 
came  to  my  relief,  /  doubt  the  hvwfuinefs  of  my  refufing  to 
cdminljlcr.  In  this  ft  rait,  my  judgment  was,  that  duty  call- 
ed me  to  proceed.. 

The  next  Lord's  day,  in  the  morning,  one  of  my  breth- 
ren, who  had  long  doubted  infant  baptifm,  came  and  re- 
queued to  have  his  children,  eight  in  number,  baptized. 
This  requeft  was  at  that  time  to  me  an  unpleafant  one :  I 
hefitated.  My  conscience  would  but  barely  confent  to  the 
baptiim  of  infants.*     Here  were  children  of  fufficient  age 

*  I  frequently  ufe  the  words,  baptifm  and  to  baptize,  in  their  modern 
and  perverted  fenfe,  to  fignify  rantifm  and  to  rantize.  It  is  defired  that 
the  reader  will  under/land  me,  and  that  the  oppofers  of  gofpel  baptifm 
will  take  no  advantage,  from  the  words  being  thus  ufed. 


Let.  II. ]         Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aufiin.  13 

to  be  taught,  and  to  believe  for  themfelves.  The  difficulty 
which  I  felt  was  mentioned  to  the  father  of  tliefe  children  : 
he  was  defired  to  wait  for  an  anfwer  till  the  intermiflion  :  I 
then  took  him,  with  two  of  my  deacons,  and  converfed  con- 
siderably upon  the  fubject.  It  was  fomewhat  plain  to  me, 
and  mentioned  to  them,  that,  going  upon  the  covenant  of 
circumcifion,  it  was  inconiiftent  to  baptize  an  infant  of  eight 
days,  and  to  refuie  another  of  twice  eight  years.  The  more 
I  thought  and  fpake  on  the  fubject,  the  more  my  difficulties 
ir.creafed.  At  this  juncture,  I  fenfibly  felt  that  wifdom  was 
needed  from  on  high.  I  mentioned  to  the  two  deacons,  that 
it  was,  in  my  judgment,  expedient  that  there  fhould  be  a 
day  of  fading  and  prayer  appointed,  that  we  might,  among 
other  requelts,  aik  of  God  wifdom  and  knowledge  with 
refpect  to  baptifm,  and  the  fit  fubjecls.  The  deacons  agreed 
to  the  expediency  cf  the  propofal,  and  the  brother  consented 
to  defer  the  baptifm  of  his  children.  Not  long  after,  at  a 
public  conference  of  the  brethren,  my  propofal  was  agreed 
to,  and  a  day  was  appointed. 

The  day  was  folemnly  obferved  :  and  with  pleafure  I 
now  give  information  to  all  whom  it  may  concern,  and  for 
the  encouragement  of  my  erring  brethren,  and  efpecially 
for  fuch  as  are  in  fenfible  darknefs  refpecting  the  fubjecls  of 
our  difficulty,  that,  to  the  bell  of  my  recollection,  every 
brother  and  fifter,  wrho  readily  united  in  this  day  of  feeking 
wifdom  of  God,  hath  been  favoured  with  light,  and  very 
comfortable  fatisfaclion,  refpecting  thofe  things  concerning 
which  we  afked  counfel  of  God.  Our  darknefs  and  doubts, 
however,  were  not  removed  all  at  once,  but  by  little  and 
little  ;  and  we  were  fet  at  liberty  one  after  another,  much  as 
it  is  in  days  of  reformation. 

Several  manifeftly  felt  no  need  of  wifdom  ;  they  {till  re- 
main in  their  traditionary  darknefs. 

The  day  of  our  fading  and  prayer  to  the  Father  of  Lights, 
for  wifdom  to  guide  us  into  the  knowledge  and  practice  of 
his  will,  being  now  ended,  my  mind  was  frill  in  anxious 
fufpenfe.  My  thoughts  now  turned  to  infant  baptiim. 
Some  expectation  1  pofTeffed,  that,  if  nothing  could  be  found 
for  infant  fprinkling,  fomething  might  for  baptizing,  that  is, 
for  immerfing  them.  My  cafe  was  fomewhat  like  that  of 
a  drowning  man, — I  was  difpofed  to  catch  at  every  ftraw 
which  might  ailift  in  faving  my  traditionary  notions  from 
jinking  :  ftill  nothing  could  1  find  which  appeared  fo  to 
comport  with  the  directions  and  pattern  given,  as  to  afford 
a  reiling  place. 


14  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  AnfAn.         [Let.  IF, 

Both  day  and  night  my  mind  was  filled  with  careful  and 
prayerful  meditation.  My  anxiety  increafed  from  week  to 
week  ;  fo  did  a  careful  fearch  after  the  mind  and  will  of 
God.  My  darknefs  likewife  increafe  J,  till  it  was  darknefs 
very  fenfibly  to  be  felt. 

For  a  week  or  ten  days  I  could  difcern  fcarce  a  ray  of 
light  refpe&ing  baptifm,  or  the  fubjecls  of  baptifm,  from  any 
quarter.  Whilft  in  this  condition,  I  was  apprehenfive  that- 
the  refult  would  be,  that  I  fhould  never  know  what  the  gof- 
pel  baptifm  is,  but  fnould,  in  this  dark  and  doubtful  ftate, 
be  difmifTed  from  my  people,  and  go  preaching  the  gofpel 
where  I  might  find  a  place. 

Notwithstanding  all  my  darknefs,  I  full  believed  that  there 
was  iiich  an  ordinance  as  gofpel  baptifm,  which  ought  to  be 
adminiftered  in  the  ufe  of  water  ;  and  that  God  was  able  to 
fhow  me  what  it  was.  But  my  prosd  heart,  at  times,  could 
not  endure  the  thought  of  being  a  Baptift  ;  however,  God, 
of  his  infinite  mercy,  as  I  now  coniider  it,  kept  me  as  in 
Egyptian  darknefs,  till  my  proud  heart  was  fubdued,  and 
tny  ftubborn  will  bowed,  and  I  made  willingly  to  fay,  Lord, 
not  my  will,  but  thine,  be  done  ;  make  me  a  Pasdobaptift, 
a  Paedorantift,  or  even  a  Baptift,  or  any  thing,  as  thou  wilt. 

Almoft  from  this  moment  the  clouds  began  to  fcatter, 
and  the  glorious,  the  important,  the  precious  light  of  gofpel 
baptifm  began  to  fhine  into  my  anxious  and  benighted  mind. 
Directly  upon  it,  I  began  to  write  and  deliver  to  my  people 
thofe  Sermons  which  you  have  profefTedly  examined. 

You  will  probably  confider  me  to  have  pofteffed  a  very 
proud  heart,  which  could  be  fo  unwilling  to  be  a  Baptift. 
Such  a  proud  heart  you,  Sir,  and  many  others  may  poifefs, 
and  be  as  infenfible  of  it  as  I  once  was.  You  may  imagine, 
that,  were  the  Baptifts  right,  you  would  as  readily  be  a 
Baptift  as  any  thing :  but,  Sir,  as  I  once  heard  a  dying 
woman  fay,  '<  When  we  are  living,  we  talk  of  dying  ;  but 
when  death  comes,  it  is  another  thing :"  fo,  whilft  we  are 
upon  good  terms  with  the  world,  we  may  talk  of  being 
Baptifts  ;  but  when  the  trial  comes,  it  is  another  thing. 

During  my  days  of  darknefs  and  trial,  the  texts  mentioned 
in,  the  clofe  of  my  laft  letter,  came,  I  know  not  how  often, 
within  my  view  :  perhaps  I  have  fifty  times  turned  to  one 
or  the  other  of  them,  w  idling  them  to  fpeak,  "infants  the 
fubjecls  of  gofpel  baptism."  In  years  paft  I  took  it  for 
granted  that  they  fpake  this  language  fomewhat  plainly  • 
but  my  thoughts  upon  thefe  texts  are  different  for  the  pres- 
ent :  they  fhall  be  now  laid,  before  ypu. 


Let.  II.]         Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aujlhu  15 

The  text  in  Mat.  xix.  13,  14,  15.  is,  «  Then  were  there 
brought  unto  him  little  children,  that:  he  fhould  put  his 
hands  on  them,  and  pray  ;  and  the  difciples  rebuked  them  : 
but  Jefus  faid,  Suffer  little  children,  and  forbid  them  not, 
to  come  unto  me,  for  of  fuch  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 
And  he  laid  his  hands  on  them,  and  departed  thence.' 
My  thoughts  refpecling  this  paflfage  are, 

1.  That  here  is  nothing  laid  or  intimated,  directly  or  in- 
directly, about  baptizing  children  upon  the  faith  of  their 
parents,  or  upon  their  being  the  children  cf  believers. 

2.  Thefe  children  were  not  brought  for  baptifm,  but 
that  Jefus  would  lay  his  hands  on  them  and  pray,  or  blefs 
them,  as  good  old  Jacob,  when  dying,  blefled  the  ions  of 
Jofeph. 

3.  Some  fuch  little  children,  as  were  brought  to  Chrift, 
are  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  fit  fubjects  of  it  too,  as 
you  may  fee  in  the  preceding  chapter,  ver.  3  and  6,  where 
it  is  thus  written,  *  Veiily  I  lay  unto  you,  Except  ye  be  con- 
verted, and  become  as  little  children,  ye  ihall  not  enter  into 
the  kingdom  of  heaven.  Whofoever  (hall  offend  one  of  thefe 
little  ones,  which  believe  in  me.'  If  you  will  turn  to  chap.  xxi. 
15,  16.  you  will  find  thefe  little  children  mentioned  again; 
and  alfo  fome  farther  information, — that  of  fuch  is  the  king- 
dom of  heaven  :  it  is  thus  related, — '  And  when  the  chief 
priefts  and  fcribes  law  the  wonderful  things  that  he  did,  and 
the  children  crying  in  the  temple,  and  faying,  Hofanna  to 
the  Son  of  David  j  they  were  fore  difpleafed,  and  faid  unto 
him,  Hearelt  thou  what  thefe  fay  ?  and  Jefus  faith  unto 
them,  Yea :  have  ye  never  read,  Out  of  the  mouth  of  babes 
and  fuchlings  thou  halt  perfected  praile  V 

4.  If  this  pafiage  hath  any  indirect  reference  to  the  bap- 
tifm of  little  children,  it  is  manifeflly  againtl  your  practice 
or  cuftcm  of  infant  baptifm  ;  ai-d  informs  you  what  children 
are  to  be  baptized,— fuch  as  are  fit  for  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,  fuch  as  believe  in  Chrift,  or  fuch  babes  and  fuck- 
lings  as  cry,  «  Hofanna  to  the  Son  of  David.' 

My  thoughts  are  fimilar,  wi;h  reflect  to  the  parallel  paf- 
fages,  which  are  related  by  Mark  and  Luke. 

The  text  in  Ads  ii.  39.  is,  *  For  the  promife  is  unto  you, 
and  to  your  children,  and  to  aH  that  are  afar  off,  even  as 
many  as  the  Lord  our  God  (hall  call. 
My  thoughts  on  this  text  are, 

1.  That  the  promife  is  unto  all,  even  to  as  many  as  th€ 
Lord  our  Gcd  mail  call,  whether  they  be  Jews  or  Gentiles, 
parents  or  children. 


i6  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aufihu         [Let.  II. 

2.  That  the  thing  promifed  was  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghoft,  as  Peter  manifeftly  informs  us  in  the  words  immedi- 
ately preceding  the  text.  * 

3.  That  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  was  what  was  fpoken 
of  by  the  prophet  Joel,  ii.  28.  as  quoted  by  Peter,  Acts  ii. 
17.  «  And  it  fhall  come  to  pals  in  the  lad  days,  (faith  God,) 
I  will  pour  out  of  my  Spirit  upon  all  flefli ;  and  your  fons 
and  your  daughters  fhall  propheiy,  and  your  young  men  (hall 
fee  vifions,  and  your  old  men  fhall  dream  dreams.'  This  is 
the  very  promife  about  which  Peter  had  been  preaching. 

4.  That,  as  Peter  laid  to  his  hearers,  *  Repent,  and  be 
baptized  every  one  of  you  in  the  name  of  Jefus  Chrift,  for 
the  remifHon  of  fins,  and  ye  fhall  receive  the  gift  of  the 
Holy  Ghoft ;'  fo  it  is  the  duty  of  all  men  who  hear  the 
gofpel  to  do  likewife,  and  they  fhould  receive  the  gift  of 
the  Holy  Ghoft,  to  quicken,  comfort,  and  feal  them  :  for 
the  promife  ftill  is  to  all,  parents  and  children,  even  to  as 
many  as  the  Lord  our  God  fhall  call. 

5.  That  the  chapter  which  contains  this  text  fufficiently 
■explains  it,  and  renders  it  not  only  eafy  to  be  underftood, 
but  difficult  to  miftake  its  true  meaning. 

There  is  fcarce  a  text  in  the  Bible  which  has  been  oftener 
preffed  to  the  fervice  of  infant  baptifm,  and  there  is  not  one 
lefs  to  the  purpofe. 

The  text  in  1  Cor.  vii.  14.  is,  « For  the  unbelieving  huf- 
band  is  fanclified  by  the  wife,  and  the  unbelieving  wife  is 
fanctified  by  the  hufband  ;  elfe  were  your  children  unclean, 
.but  now  are  they  holy.' 

My  thoughts,  Sir,  on  this  text,  are, 

1.  That  it  hath  nothing  to  fay  about  baptifm,  for  it  or 
againft  it.  The  apoftle  is  treating  on  a  fubjecl  quite  afide 
from  that  of  baptifm.  The  fubject,  as  you  well  know,  is 
about  hufbands  and  wives  living  together,  after  one  of  the 
parties  is  converted.  The  fubjecl  of  baptifm  does  not  once 
come  to  view  in  the  whole  matter. 

2.  The  apoftle  tells  us,  that  the  infidel  hufoand  is  faneli- 
fied,  or  made  holy,  as  really  and  as  truly  fo,  and  for  aught 
appears,  in  the  fame  fenie  of  holinefs,  as  the  children  are 
holy.  This  text,  therefore,  if  you  will  make  it  relate  to  bap- 
tifm, proves  too  much  ;  it  proves  that  the  infidel  and  idol- 
atrous hufband,  as  well  as  the  children,  is  to  be  baptized. 
This,  Sir,  you,  and  every  man  who  is  not  blinded  by  igno- 
rance or  prejudice,  would  blufh  to  advocate.  This  text  is, 
therefore,  nothing  for  infant  baptifm. 


Let.  II.  ]  Letters  to  Rev.  A/r.  AujYin.  17 

As  to  the  texts,  Acts  xvi.  15  and  n.  and  1  Cor.  i.  16. 
which  fpeak  of  the  baptiihi  of  houleholds,  my  thoughts  of 
them  are, 

1.  As  exprefTed  in  my  Sermons. 

2.  That  thefe  texts  are  totally  Iilent  about  infant  baptifm, 
and  that  they  would,  therefore,  be  never  preiTed  in  to  the 
iupport  of  it,  were  not  that  point  very  difficult  of  proof. 

3.  There  is,  on  the  whole,  no  intimation  that  there  was,  in 
either  of  the  houleholds,  any  one  baptized,  without  being  at 
the  time  a  vilible  believer.  .  As  to  Lydia's  houfehold,  we  read 
in  the  lail  verie  of  the  chapter  of  the  brethren  in  her  houfe. 
As  to  the  jailer's, — Paul  told  him,  that  if  he  believed  on  the 
Lord  Jefus  he  mould  be  raved,  and  his  houfe.  How  could 
they  be  laved,  if  they  did  not  believe?  for  'he  that  belicv- 
eth  not  fhall  be  damned  :'  befides,  we  are  told  in  the  con- 
nexion, that  the  jailer  rejoiced,  believing  in  God  with  all  hi* 
houfe. 

You  are  pleafed  to  tell  me,  in  your  expofition,  "  that  th« 
Greek  participle  which  is  rendered  believing,  is  in  the  fm- 
gular  number. '*  Every  Engliih  reader,  who  is  acquainted 
with  the  contraction  of  language,  knows  it  is  the  fame  in 
our  common  Bibles  :  what,  therefore,  do  you  gain  by  refer- 
ring to  the  Greek  ?  Should  you  write  again,  pleafe  to  inform 
me  by  what  authority  you  contradict  the  tranflators  of  the 
Bible,  and  injure  the  fenfe  of  this  text,  by  telling  us,  that 
the  jailer  believed  in  God  and  rejoiced  domejlically. 

With  regard  to  Stephanas' s  houfehold,  they  were  addicted 
to  the  mini  ft  ry  of  the  faints,  and  this  too,  for  aught  appears, 
from  the  day  of  their  baptifm. 

The  above  texts,  which  are  your  principal  ones,  being 
inefficient  to  fupport  infant  baptifm,  it  muft  fall :  for  it  is  a 
general  truth, — The  foundation  being  removed,  the  fuper- 
iiruchire  muft  come  down.  Thefe  texts  have  been  placed, 
by  the  Paedobaptifts,  as  the  foundation  of  infant  baptifm. 
Thefe  texts  fay  nothing  about  it ;  yet  they  fay  as  much  as 
does  any  other  in  all  the  Bible.  The  fair  concluiion  is, 
infant  baptifm  muft  fall,  or  ftand  upon  nothing  :  or,  which 
is  the  fame  thing,  it  muft  fall,  or  ftand  upon  texts  which 
have  no  connexion  with  it,  and  which  fay  nothing  about  it. 
We  wiih  your  denomination  would  be  kind  enough  to  be  as 
iilent  about  infant  baptifm,  in  both  precept  and  example,  as 
is  the  Bible  ;  then  would  the  controverfy  be  ended. 

Now,  Sir,  permit  me  to  add  a  few  reflections  from  what 
we  have  paifed  over. 

c 


1 8  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aujlin.        [Let.  III. 

The  Jirft  is — When  I  found  "  that  I  had  not  that,  full 
conviction  on  the  points  of  what  is  called  pscdobaptifm,"  my 
courfe  of  inquiry  was  very  finiilar  to  yours  ;  and  after  I  had 
puriiied  the  fame  courfe  three  years,  my  conclufion  was  the 
lame  with  yours,  that  the  mode  of  applying  water  in  baptifm 
was  not  very  determinately  pointed  out,  but  that  water  ap- 
plied in  almoft  any  way  might  aniwer  the  intent  of  the  great 
Inilitutor.  When  I  had  inquired  three  years  more,  fqj'iing 
and  prayer  being  added,  my  conclufion  was  the  reverfe. 

The  Jecond  is — That  the  reafons,  and  the  only  reafons, 
why  I  could  find  no  determinate  mode  of  applying  water  in 
baptifm,  are  thefe  :  lirft,  I  would  not  believe  that  immerfion 
was  the  mode,  or  was  the  goipel  baptifm  ;  and  fecondly,  I 
could  find  no  other  mentioned  ;  hence  I  concluded  that  none 
was  prefcribed. 

Third.  You,  Sir,  having  been  as  I  once  was,  you  may  be 
as  I  now  am. 

Wiihing  you  much  light  and  more  grace, 

I  am,  &c. 


LETTER   III. 


REVEREND    SIR, 

I  NOW  proceed  to  examine,  as  critically  and  as  concifely 
as  I  conveniently  can,  your  examination  of  my  Seven 
Sermons. 

Whilft  your  Letters  fhall  pafs  in  review,  I  (hall  endeavour 
the  ruin  of  the  errors  which  they  contain.  But,  believe  me, 
Sir,  my  defire  is,  that  not  fo  much  as  one  fliaft  may  be  aimed 
either  againfl  your  perfon,  reputation,  or  piety.  My  bufinefs 
is  not  what  you  or  your  denomination  are,  as  to  numbers, 
talents,  or  piety  ;  but  my  bufinefs  is  with  your  errors,  the 
ways  by  which  you  fupport  them,  and  with  the  truths  which 
ruin  them.  Whilll  I  write  not  for  you  only,  but  for  all  who 
may  read,  you  mult  give  me  leave  to  ufe  great  plainnefs  of 
fpeech. 

The  errors  which  you  advocate  and  I  oppofe,  are  of  fuch 
magnitude,  and  fraught  with  fuch  evil  confequences  to  both 
faints  and  finners,  that  we  fhould  poflefs  all  that  calmnefs 
in  meditation  and  exprefllon,  which  au  earneft  contention 
for  the  faith  will  permit. 


Let.  III. ]        Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aujlln.  19 

The  errors,  Sir,  which  you  plead  for,  and  I  againft,  are 
three*: 

1.  Sprinkling,  or  partial  wafhing,  is  baptifm. 

2.  That  manifeft  unbelievers  are  proper  and  gofpel  fub- 
jecls  of  baptifm. 

3.  That  baptifm  is  not  necefTary  to  memberfhip  in  the 
vifible  church  of  Chrift. 

Thefe  three  principles  of  yours  are  confidered  to  be  errors, 
and  at  war  with  the  gofpel  of  our  Lord  Jefus  Chrift.  You 
confider  them  to  be  a  part  of  his  gofpel.  What  you  have 
in  your  Letters  faid,  directly  or  indirectly,  in  their  favour,  it 
will  be  a  part  of  my  bufmefs  to  refute.  It  alfo  belongs  to 
me  to  mow  the  inconclulivenefs  of  your  fuppofed  refutation 
of  my  arguments  in  favour  of  the  three  following  truths. 

1.  Immerfion,  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jefus,  or  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghoft,  is  the  only  gofpel 
baptifm. 

2.  No  perfon  hath  a  right  to  gofpel  baptifm,  but  upon  his 
making  a  profeffion  of  gofpel  faith. 

3.  No  perfon  is  a  member  of  Chrift's  vifible  church  till  he 
be  baptized. 

From  thefe  principles  you  draw  fome  popular  objections 
againft  my  fermons.  In  the  fecond  fentence  of  your  firft 
Letter  you  fay,  and  you  meant  the  world  ihould  hear  it, 
"  that  I  muft  now  coniider  you  as  one  of  the  antichriftian 
world."  In  the  8th,  9th,  and  10th  pages  you  very  much 
enlarge  this  of  all  objections  the  moft  popular.  My  readers, 
Sir,  {ball  have  your  objection  let  before  them  in  its  full 
ftrength  :  for  if  it  be  conclufive  againft  my  principles,  let  it 
deftroy  them  ;  but  if  it  have  no  weight,  let  it  be  fet  down 
for  nothing.     Your  objection  is  in  the  following  words  : 

"  Are  you  fure  that  you  act  under  the  divine  approbation, 
whilft  merely  becaufe  I  am  not  a  baptized  perfon,  according 
to  your  notion  of  baptifm,  you  place  me  without,  where  are 
dogs,  and  forcerers,  and  whoremongers,  and  murderers,  and 
idolaters,  and  whofcever  loveth  and  maketh  a  lie  ?  To  thefe 
extremities  you  are  driven,  by  the  radical  principle  of  your 
book,  by  holding  that  complete  immerfion  is  the  only  Chrif- 
tian  baptifm,  and  that  baptifm  is  eifential  to  a  peribn's. being 
a  vifible  member  of  Chrift's  kingdom  :  and  by  this  principle 
you  fhut  out  thoufands  with  whom,  in  regard  to  piety  and 
Chriftian  respectability,  probably  you,  certainly  I,  can  claim 
no  companion.  You  enroll  among  the  vifible  enemies  of 
God,  Leightcn,  Flavel,  Doddridge,  Watts,  Gardiner,  the 
Edwardses,  the  Brainerds,   and   a   multitude  of  eminently 


2o  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Auftin.        [Let.  IH. 

hoi)-  men,  whofe  names  it  is  impolfible  you  mould  recoiled 
but  with  deep  veneration. " 

Yes,  Sir,  I  recoiled  their  names  with  veneration,  and  their 
errors  with  regret.  But  what  h.uh  veneration  or  regret  to 
do  with  principles  ? 

I  muft  here  ftate  three  things : 

i.  That  the  manner  in  which  you  throw  the  objection 
before  the  public,  has  a  very  natural  tendency  to  give  an 
incautious  reader  a  very  unjuit  idea  of  the  tendency  of  my 
principles. 

2.  That  great  men  and  great  names  can  never  change 
truth  into  a  lie. 

3.  Your  argument  againft  the  juftnefs  of  my  principles 
is  not  fufficient  to  prove  them  wrong. 

1.  The  manner  in  which  you  throw  the  objection  before 
the  public,  has  a  very  natural  tendency  to  give  an  incautious 
reader  a  very  unjuit  idea  of  the  tendency  of  my  principles. 
He  would  naturally  enough  conclude  that  I  muft,  if  con- 
iiftent  with  myfelf,  believe  that  no  one  except  the  Baptifts 
has  any  religion ;  that  I  coniider  and  treat  all  others  as 
being  impenitent  and  ungodly;  yes,  as  being  ".profligate 
and  aiifegenerate."  A  more  unjuft  idea  could  not  be  com- 
municated. Such  an  idea  is  not  only  incontinent  with  my 
principles,  but  they  forbid  any  perfon's  fuggefting  that  fuch 
an  idea  could  fairly  be  deduced  from  them.  One  of  our 
principles  is,  that  no  perfon  is  a  fit  fubjeel  of  baptiim,  unlefs 
he  be  a  penitent,  a  godly,  a  regenerate  perfon. 

Bendes,  Sir,  I  am  not  fingular,  in  conlidering  men  to  be 
not  of  the  viable  church,  but  vifibly  with  the  world,  till 
they  are  baptized.  This  hath  ever  been  the  fentiment  of 
the  church.  It  was  always  mine,  fince  I  had  any  fentiment 
on  the  fubjeel:. 

I  will  put  a  cafe.  Suppofe  there  be  a  reformation  at  this 
prefent  time  at  Worcefter,  where  you  refide.  Suppofe  fifty 
perfons  of  the  brighten:  talents  be  converted.  Not  one  of 
them  has  been  baptized,  or  even  fo  much  as  fprinkled.  I 
providentially  ride  through  the  town  next  week'.  By  chance 
I  meet  Mr.  Auftin  in  the  ftreet,  and  put  this  queftion, — 
Have  thole  very  refpeclabie  characters,  who  have  been  of  late 
hopeful])'  converted,  joined  the  church,  (meaning  the  vifible 
church)  ?  your  reply  would  be  ready,  No,  but  lbme  of  them 
have  palfed  examination,  and  give  full  fatibfaction,  who  with 
the  red  will  probably  join  in  a  fhort  time.  Indeed,  Sir,  you 
would  have  no  idea  of  telling  me  that  they  belonged  to  the 
viuble  church,  unlefs  you  are  contrary  from  all  men  whom 


Let.  III.]        Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aufnn.  21 

I  have,  ever  yet  feen.  It  is  an  offence  again  ft  the  common 
fenfe  of  Chriftians  of  all  denominations,  who  believe  in  gof- 
pel  ordinances,  to  advocate,  that  peribns  belong  to  the  vifible 
church,  and  yet  never  baptized.  Were  your  fide  not  hard 
pre/fed,  you  would  never  think  of  fuch  an  expedient  to  get 
out  of  difficulty. 

This  being  the  cafe,  the  Baptifts  do  but  confider  and  treat 
you  and  your  denomination,  as  you  do  the  wifeft  and  mod 
pious  among  yourielves,  till  they  be  baptized.  Hence,  you 
can  but  fee  that  you  condemn  in  us  what  you  allow,  and 
almoft  univerfally  practife  among  yourfelves.  Happy,  Sir, 
is  he  that  condemned)  not  himielf  in  that  which  he  alloweth. 

2.  Great  men  and  great  names  can  never  change  truth 
into  a  lie. 

Suppofe  our  principles  be  fuch  as  to  lead  us  to  believe, 
that  feme  great  and  good  men,  who  will  not  join  the  vifible 
church,  are  not  members  of  it.  By  the  way,  this  is  juft  what 
you  believe  yourielves.  Becaufe  we  believe  thus,  do  you 
wifh  us  to  be  'reproached  before  all  men,  as  being  fuperfti- 
tioufly  different  from  all  Chriilians  and  reafonable  men  ? 
Beiides,  my  dear  Sir,  what  have  great  and  venerable  names 
to  do  in  determining  in  your  favour  the  truth  or  falfehood 
of  a  principle,  when  the  faith  and  practice  of  the  fame  great 
and  good  men  have  always  been  in  the  face  of  your  theory  ? 
Did  you  not  introduce  this  whole  affair,  about  excluding 
pious  and  venerable  men  from  communion,  in  order  to  pre- 
poffefs  the  feelings  and  paffions  of  your  readers  in  your 
favour,  before  you  ventured  to  try  the  ftrength  of  the  gofpel 
principles,  or  thofe  which  you  are  pleafed  to  term  mine  ? 
If  you  did  not,  I  fee  but  one  other  motive  which  you  could 
have,  that  is,  to  make  room  for  a  retreat,  and  lave  for  yourfelf 
a  ftanding  in  the  vifible  church,  though  you  might  not  be 
able  to  prove  fprinkiing  or  partial  warning  to  be  baptifm,  or 
to  refute  my  arguments  for  immerfion. 

3.  Your  argument  againft  the  juftnefs  of  my  princples  is 
not  able  to  prove  them  wrong. 

Your  argument  is,  Great  names  and  confeffors.  But 
great  names  have  no  authority  to  overturn  principles  which 
are  founded  on  revelation.  As  to  confeffors,  you  have 
none.  Not  one  hath  been  called  to  fuffer  in  defence  of  your 
principles,  and  againft  mine.  If  none  have  fuffered  in  de- 
fence of  your  principles,  your  hoft  of  confeffors  are  at  mod 
but  great  names.  Hence,  your  whole  argument  is,  if  my 
principle  be  juft,  many  great  and  good  men  have  (through 

c  2 


22  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aujlhu        [I^t.  Ill, 

negleft  of  duty,  for  want  of  light,  inclination,  or  opportunity) 
never  been  members  of  the  vilible  kingdom  or  church  of 
Chrift.  Your  argument  I  grant,  but  deny  that  it  injures 
my  principles.  If  your  argument  dellroy  my  principles, 
one  of  thefe  two  things  is  true  ; — either  i.  That  there  never 
were  any  good  men  among  any  heathen  nation,  tribe,  or 
language,  where  the  vifible  church  of  Chrift  was  unknown  ; 
or  2.  That  thefe  good  men  belonged  to  Chrift's  vifible 
church,  where  there  was  none.  To  affert  the  firil  would  be 
prefumption  ;  to  advocate  the  laft  would  be  abfurd  :  hence 
my  principles  as  yet  are  out  of  danger, 

Sir,  you  do  not  appear  fully  to  comprehend  the  Baptift 
idea  of  church  memberfhrp ;  it  is  therefore  expedient  to 
come  to  definitions. 

1.  None  but  vifible  faints  are  to  he  baptized. 

2.  Every  baptized  perfon,  fo  long  as  he  raanifefts  himfelf 
to  be  a  vifible  faint,  is  a  member  of  the  vilible  church. 

3.  Every  baptized  perfon,  who  joins  himfelf  to  a  fociety 
cf  baptized  believers/  is  a  member  of  a  particular  vifible 
church. 

In  your  note,  pages  12  and  13,  you  fee  fit  to  contradict 
what  appears  to  have  been  the  general,  if  not  the  univerfal, 
fentiment  of  the  church  in  all  ages  of  Chriftianity,  and  trie 
fentiment  of  the  Bible  too,  as  I  expert  to  make  maniieft. 
This,  your  contradiction  againft  the  church  of  God,  and 
againft  his  word,  confifts  in  your  denying  that  baptifm  is 
the  ordinance  of  introduction  into  the  vifible  church  of 
Chrift,  or  is  neceflary  to  a  vifible  (landing  in  it. 

Your  note  in  pages  18  and  19,  was  probably  considered 
by  you,  and  will  be  by  many  of  your  readers,  as  containing 
a'  difficulty  which  I  fhould  not  be  able  to  get  rid  of  hand- 
fomely.  I  will  tranferibe  the  paffage  in  which  the  apparent 
and  fuppofed  difficulty  is  contained. 

'*  Mr.  Merrill  (fay  you)  tells  us,  page  51,  that  John  bap- 
tized none  but •  fuch  as  brought  forth  vifible  fruits  of  repent- 
ance. Thefe  perfons  he  was  making  ready  for  the  Lord  ; 
when  prepared,  they  were  to  compofe  that  kingdom,  or  the 
beginning  of  that  kingdom,  which  fTiall  never  be  deftroyed. 
Me  adds,  It  appears  to  be  this  kingdom  which  was  now  at 
hand,  almofl:  ready  to  be  fet  up,  of  which  Chrift  fpake  to 
Nicodemus,  when  he  faid,  John  iii.  5.  4  Except  a  man  be 
born  of  water  and  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  king- 
dom of  God.'  But  this  is  to  concede,  either  that  John's 
baptifm  was- not  Chriftian  baptifm,  but  of  an  entirely  differ- 
ent nature,  or  that  baptifm  docs  net  introduce  into  the  king- 


Let.  III.]        Leiicrs  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aufthu  23 

dom,  as  a  line  of  reparation,  &c. ;  for  after  thefe  multitudes 
were  baptized,  according  to  the  reprefentarion  of  Mr.  Mer- 
rill, they  were  only  made  ready  for  the  kingdom,  which 
had  not  yet  even  a  being.  Here,  then,  he  gives  up  his 
darling  dtidrrae." 

As  to  this  difficulty,  in  which  you  confider  me  now  to  be, 
let  it  be  remarked, 

1.  That  it  puts  me  not  to  the  lead  difficulty  as  to  the 
principal  point  in  debate,  namely,  That  no  peribn  can  be  a 
member  of  Chrift's  vifible  church,  till  he  be  baptized  ;  for 
thefe  perfons  were  confefledly  of  this  defcription. 

2.  "  It  puts  my  darling  doctrine,"  as  you  exprefs  it,  not 
to  the  leaft  hazard,  any  more  than  the  peculiar  circum- 
flar.ces  of  the  firft  fetting  up  of  Chrift's  vifible  kingdom 
would,  and  in uft  manifeftly  have  done,  on  fuppofmon  that 
my  darling  doctrine  were  perfectly  true,  and  i'o  my  fentiment 
correct.  For,  does  not  an  examination  by  an  authorized 
officer,  and  the  enlifting  of  the  examined  peribn,  conftiiute 
him  a  foldier  ?  Yet  the  firft  perfen  fo  emiited  cannot  be  laid 
to  belong  to  the  army  ;  nor  can  he  belong  to  it  till  numbers 
lb  re  are  enlifted,  and  the  army  organized.  At  the  fame 
time,  fci'efe  very  things,  his  examination  and  enlifting  would, 
after  the  army  is  conftituted,  be  confidered  as  the  introduc- 
tory and  indifpenfablc  pre-reqiiitites.  The  application  is 
eafy,  and  the  concltffion  this, — That  I  have  no  necethty  of 
conceding  to  either  of  the* things  which  yen  fuppofe  ;  either 
that  John's  baptiim  is  not  Chriitian  baptifrh,  or  that  bap- 
tifm  does  not  introduce  into  the  kingdom,  as  a  line  of  repa- 
ration. 

3.  Were  it  fo  that  the  quotations  which  you  make  would 
crowd  me,  even  as  deftly  as  you  fuppofe,  ftill  your  own 
principles  would  (land  in  the  molt  hazardous  pofition,  and 
muft  receive  the  firft  (hock.  For,  fay  you,  pages  12,  13, 
fpeaking  of  what  initiates  into  the  vifible  church,  "  It  is  that 
evidence,  v  hatever  it  be,  which  is  furnifhed  by  the  fubject, 
or  by  God  hiralelf,  that  a  man  is  a  faint."  It  is  a  given 
truth,  Sir,  that  many  of  John's  difciples  furnifiied  this  evi- 
dence, when  they  were  but  in  part  made  ready,  that  is, 
before  they  were  baptized.  Hence  your  principle  brings 
ycu  to  this  felf  contradictory  conclusion,  that  perfons  arc 
members  of  Chrift's  vifible  church,  and  at  the  fame  time 
are  not  made  ready  for  him.  For  it  was  by  preaching  the 
baptiim  of  repentance,  and  by  baptizing  the  penitents,  that 
John  made  ready  a  people  prepared  for  the  Lord.  Here 
is,  upon  your  own  principles,  a  difficulty,  which  I  know  not 


24  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aujlln.        [Let.  IV. 

how  to  fur  mount  or  remove  ;  whereas  upon  mine  there  is 
none,  unlefs  it  be  a  little  more  explanation  is  wanted. 

The  penitents  who  were  baptized  of  John,  were  made 
ready  and  prepared  for  the  vifible  church  ;  or  they  were 
the  unorganized  beginnings  of  it.  As  two,  or  as  twenty, 
approved  and  enlifted  foldiers,  who  are  thus  made  ready 
and  prepared  for  an  army,  which  is  about  to  be  formed,  are 
not  the  army,  unlefs  it  be  the  unorganized  beginnings  of  it ; 
fo,  or  in  a  fimilar  iituation,  are  John's  fir  ft  difciples,  if  not 
the  whole  of  them,,  confidered  to  have  been. 

In  your  fecond  Letter  you  afk  me  perhaps  a  dozen  quef- 
tions,  and  ftate  a  particular  cafe.  I  have  been,  and  am 
Mill,  rather  at  uncertainty,  whether  you  propofed  them  feri- 
oufly  or  not. 

If  you  be  ferious  in  the  inquiries, — "  What  do  we  confider 
the  characters  of  our  candidates  for  baptifm  to  be  ? — What 
ihould  we  think  of  a  perfon  who  propofed  to  be  baptized, 
and  afterwards  ihould,  from  principle  or  from  an  erroneous 
confcience,  refufe  ? — Whom  do  we  confider  to  be  members 
of  the  viable  church,  &c.  ?"  Our  anfwer  is, — i.  We  confider 
our  candidates  for  baptifm  to  be  vifible  faints.  2  A  perfon 
who  has  agreed  to  be  baptized,  and  mould  afterwards, 
merely  from  error  of  judgment,  refufe  to  be,  would  ftili  be 
confidered  a  vifible  faint ;  but,  at  the  fame  time,  we  mould 
believe  him  to  be  for  the  prefent  not  fit  for  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,  for  he,  having  put  his  hand  to  the  plough,  looked 
back.  3.  All  vifible  faints,  who  have  been  baptized,  we 
efteem  to  be  members  of  Chrift's  vifible  church,  and  none 
elfc. 

Thefe  anfwers,  Sir,  being  carefully  attended  to,  will  folve 
all  other  queftions  upon  the  fubjecl. 

Wiihing  you  light  to  fee  the  truth,  and  grace  to  praclife  it, 

I  am,  &c. 


LETTER   IV. 


REVEREND    SIR, 

THE  bufinefs  now  on  hand  is,  to  review  your  examina- 
tion of  my  definitions  and  arguments,  which  relate  to 
what  is  Chriftian  baptifm. 

On  fuppofition  that  your  examination  has  been  candid, 
critical,  and  impartial,  you  have  nothing  to  fear  from  its 


Let.  DC]        Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aujlhu  25 

being  carefully  reviewed.  If  your  examination  of  my  defi- 
nitions and  arguments  fliould  be  found  to  be  neither  candid, 
critical,  nor  impartial,  the  public  will  in  the  iffue  difecver 
where  the  fault  lies,  and  attach  blame  where  it  belongs. 

The  prefent  point  in  debate  you  define  well,  pages  19,  2C. 
Say  you,  "  The  debate  is  confined  to  a  (Ingle  point :  it  is 
this, — Whether  a  complete  immeriion  of  the  body  in  water, 
io  that  it  iliall  be  buried  or  overwhelmed  in  water,  be  the 
only  Chriftian  baptifm  ?"  This  is  the  thing  which  you  deny, 
but  it  is  what  I  confider  to  be  already  fairly  gained,  and 
from  which  I  expeel  to  remove  all  your  objections,  which 
have  any  plauiibiiity  againft  it. 

Permit  me  to  make  an  obfervation  or  two,  and  then  I 
fhall  proceed  to  the  buiinefs  before  us.  The  fir  It  obfervation 
is,  "  It  feems  (fay  you)  very  extraordinary  that  immeriion, 
as  the  only  Chriftian  baptifm,  fhould  be  fo  clearly  and  un- 
ambiguoully  taught,  as  much  or  more  fo  than  any  Chriftian 
duty  ;  alms-giving,  for  inftance,  about  which  there  never 
was  any  difpute  ;  and  yet  yourfelf,  and  fuch  a  multitude  of 
pious,  learned,  and  refpectable  minifters,  and  the  pureft  and 
mod  enlightened  part  of  the  Chriftian  church,  fince  the 
reformation,  fhould  fo  long  remain  unconvinced  and  unre- 
claimed. " 

Was  there  never  any  difpute  about  alms-giving  ?  If  not, 
whence,  I  pray  you,  arifes  the  large  quantity  of  warm  ccn- 
verfation  which  there  has  fometimes  been  in  the  world  about 
alms-giving,  for  the  poor,  and  other  charitable  ufes  ?  Some 
are  complained  of  for  their  covetoufnefs,  when  alms  are 
requefted  ;  fome  for  their  too  great  liberality  :  fome  will  be 
offended  becaufe  alms  are  requefted  :  fome  affirm  that  giv- 
ing money  or  goods  to  fuch  or  fuch  a  perfon,  is  alms-giving  ; 
others  will  deny  that  it  is  :  fome  will  contend,  that  to  give 
property  for  this  purpofe  or  for  that  purpofe,  is  alms-giving  ; 
others  are  confident  that  it  is  no  deed  of  charity  to  part  with 
one's  money  to  promote  fuch  purpofes  :  others  ftill  may  be 
found,  who  will  not  allow  that  any  Chriftian  duty  of  alms- 
giving is  performed,  unlefs  a  Chriftian  temper  be  exercifed 
in  the  performance.  Perhaps  there  is  fcarce  a  religious 
duty,  except  baptifm,  about  which  there  has  been  more  dif- 
pute, among  Papifts  and  Froteftants,  and  among  Baptifts 
and  Paedobaptifts,  than  the  duty  of  alms-giving.  It  feems 
extraordinary  that  you  fhould  not  have  known  this  ;  and 
had  you  known  it,  you  could  not  have  mentioned  the  duty 
of  alms-giving,  with  the  lead  reafonable  expectation,  that  by 
it  ycu  mould  be  able  to  refute  my  idea  of  the  clearnefs  and 


26  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Auftiru        [Let.  IV. 

explicitnefs  of  the  duty  of  Chriftian  baptifm  by  immcrfion. 
Perhaps  you  may  reply,  "  I  meant,  there  was  never  any 
difpute  about  there  being  fuch  a  Chriftian  duty  as  alms- 
giving." Should  this  be  granted  as  a  general  truth,  it  is 
equally  true  that  there  has  been  as  little  difpute  about  the 
exiftence  of  fuch  a  Chriftian  duty  as  baptifm.  It  may  be 
■well  to  remark,  that  it  never  has  been  denied  in  any  age,  by 
any  denomination  of  Chriftians,  but  immerfion  is  Chriftian 
baptifm,  when  it  has  been  adminiftered  by  a  proper  perfon, 
and  to  a  fuitable  fubjecl.  Juft  the  fame  is  true  with  refpect 
to  alms-giving,  mutatis  mutandis. 

As  to  the  "  multitude  of  pious,  learned,  and  very  refpecl:- 
able  minifters,  and  the  pureft  and  mod  enlightened  part  of 
the  Chriftian  church,  fince  the  reformation,  remaining  fo 
long  unconvinced  and  unreclaimed,"  I  beg  leave  to  refer 
you  to  my  Letters  on  open  communion  with  all  who  keep 
the  ordinances  as  Chrift  delivered  them  to  the  faints. 

The  other  obfervation  which  I  have  to  make,  relates  to  a 
paftage  in  your  22d  page  :  it  is  this, — "  If  the  terms  which 
are  ufed  by  Chrift  and  his  apoftles,  when  referring  to  this 
ordinance,  have  one  uniform,  unambiguous  meaning,  which 
determines  baptifm  to  be  immerfion,  and  the  concurrent 
language'  and  facts  of  fcripture  coincide  with  and  fupport 
this  meaning,  the  point  is  fettled.  We  are  not  left  to  act  at 
difcretion.  To  make  this  evident,  is  the  object  which  you 
fet  yourfelf  to  accompiifh." 

Very  well,  Sir,  and  it  is  the  object  which  I  am  now  writ- 
ing to  accompliih,  and  if  the  Lord  will,  I  ihall  inftrumen- 
tally  make  fome  progrefs  towards  its  accomplifhment. 

Now,  Sir,  for  a  review  of  your  examination,  pages  22,  23. 
Your  profeffedly  critical  examination  is  thus  introduced  : 
"  You  begin  (fay  you-  to  me)  by  what  you  call  defining  the 
terms,  and  by  detailing  to  us  all  the  paifages  in  the  New 
Teftament  which  fpeak  on  the  fubjecl:  of  baptifm.  Your 
firft  word  is  Baptifteri<mt  the  fignification  of  which  is,  a  font, 
a  bath,  a  walliing  place,  a  veffel  to  wain  the  body  in.  Very 
well,"  fay  you.  Juft  below  you  add,  "  If  it  (i.  e.  baptijlerion) 
were  in  an  hundred  places  in  the  New  Teftament,  it  would 
furnifn  no  evidence  in  proof  of  your  propofition."  Anf.  Let 
us,  Sir,  for  one  moment,  turn  the  tables,  and  fuppofe  that 
lapiijkrion  favours  fprinkling,  as  it  now  favours  immerfion, 
and  that  the  definition  of  it  were,  a  bafon,  a  porringer,  a 
fprinkling  place,  a  veffel  to  fpvinkle  the  face  from  ;  would 
here  be  no  drcumftantial  evidence  in  favour  of  fprinkling  ? 
Would  not  this  fmgle  word,  on  fuppofition  that  it  favoured 


Let.  IV.]        Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Auftitt.  27 

your  practice  as  it  does  ours,  be  more  evidence  for  you  than 
you  are  now  able  to  collect  from  all  writings,  either  human 
or  divine  ?  Yet  it  furniihes,  fay  you,  no  (circurnftantial) 
evidence  for  us.  I  mentioned  it  as  a  mere  circumftance  in 
our  favour  ;  the  reader  will  judge  whether  it  be  fo.  My 
next  words  defined  were  baptifma  and  baptijmos,  the  Englifh 
of  which  is  baptifm,  warning,  facred  ceremonial  wafhing. 
Here,  Sir,  you  feparated,  in  the  lad  part  of  my  definition, 
what  I  wiih  to  have  underftood  as  being  joined  together. 
The  three  laft  words  are  exegetical  or  explanatory  of  the 
firft,  and  fhew  the  kind  of  wafhing  which  I  intend.  I  know 
not  how  you  could  fo  miftake  my  meaning,  as  to  fuppofe 
that  I  intended  common  wafhing.  If  the  definition  itfelf 
were  fo  expreffed  that  it  was  pofhble  to  miftake  my 
meaning,  yet  what  was  faid  afterwards,  in  many  places, 
fhow  that  I  could  have  no  fuch  intention  as  you  intimate  ; 
indeed,  it  could  not  but  have  been  obvious  that  my  meaning 
was  not  common  wafhing  :  for  the  fact  is,  as  I  endeavoured 
to  fhow,  and  hope  raclt  plainly  to  fhow,  that  the  Greek 
words  for  baptifm  and  to  baptize  have  no  fuch  meaning  in 
the  Bible  as  common  wafhing.  I  find  no  place  in  your 
Letters  where  you  fhow  that  they  have  ;  and  I  expect  to 
iliow  that  they  have  not. 

You  afk,  "  But  is  there  no  facred  ceremonial  wafhing 
befides  immerfion  ?"  Anf.  No,  not  where  baptifma^  baptijmos 
or  bapt'1%0  is  in  the  original. 

Your  obfervation  upon  baptt/i's,  my  third  word  defined,  is, 
"  You  know  that  this  word  limply  means  a  baptizer."  But, 
Sir,  the  queftion  is,  What  is  a  baptizer  ?  I  explained  or  de- 
fined it,  one  who  dips,  a  Baptift ;  I  now  add,  it  is,  ftrictly 
fpeaking,  a  Baptifl  minifter,  or  one  who  admini iters  die 
ordinance  of  baptifm,  or  one  who  immerfes.  Why  did  you 
©mit  my  definition  ?  was  it  becaufe  you  faw  no  plaufible 
refutation  ? 

In  the  next  place,  I  defined  bapt'1%0  to  mean,  when  ren- 
dered into  Englilh,  to  baptize,  to  dip  all  over,  to  wafh. 

To  baptize  is,  indeed,  a  Greek  word,  fupplied  with  an 
Englifh  termination. 

Upon  my  definition  you  make  the  following  remark  : 
"  The  firft  and  the  laft  of  thefe  definitions,  it  appears  to  me, 
you  might  as  well  have  omitted."  No,  Sir,  I  might  not  as 
well  have  omitted  either,  or  efpecially  the  laft ;  for  then 
you  might  juftly  have  complained,  but  now  complaint  is 
afide,  for  I  gave  my  definitions  full ;  I  did  it  purpofely :  I 
gave  you  all  to  which  you  could  make  any  honourable  pre- 


2  8  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aujlin.        [Let.  IV. 

tenfions,  fo  that  when  thefe  were  fhown  to  fpeak  nothing  for 
your  practice,  but  wholly  for  ours,  you  might  put  in  no 
farther  claim  j  but  as  you  have,  your  claim  mult  be  ex- 
amined. 

"  Your  definitions  of  the  wordjouo,  to  warn,  to  rinfe,  to 
bathe,  (fay  you  to  me)  feem  as  little  to  contribute  to  fup- 
port  your  hypothefis,  becaufe  it  is  indifputable  that  we  often 
wafh,  rinfe,  anJfr  bathe,  without  immerfing  totally  under 
water  the  thing  or  body  warned,  rinfed,  or  bathed."  But 
do  we  ever  waft,  rinfe,  or  bathe  by  fprinhltng  ? 

I  have  no  where  told  the  public  that  loud  always  implied 
immerfion,  nor  did  I  ever  intend  to  communicate  fuch  an 
idea.  It  was  and  is  ftill  quite  fufficient  for  my  purpofe,  to 
find  that  loud  is  never  ufed  in  the  Bible,  or  in  the  New  Tei- 
tament,  to  mean  any  thing  ihort  of  bathing  a  body  or  thing 
all  over, 

"  But  now,"  fay  you,  page  25,  "  for  your  proof  of  the  fpe- 
cific,  uniform,  unambiguous  meaning  of  the  word  baptizo, 
as  iignifying  total  immerfion.  You  fay,  page  37,  •  the  plain, 
literal  meaning  and  common  fignification  of  the  word  is  to 
immerfe,  overwhelm,  dip,  or  plunge  all  over  ;  and  that  there 
appears  to  be  no  evidence  that  it  is  ever  ufed  fo  much  as 
once,  in  any  part  of  the  Bible,  to  fignify  the  application  of 
water  in  any  other  fenfe.'  But  this  is  not  proof,  my  dear 
Sir,  it  is  your  aifertion.  I  am  conftrained  to  deny  the  cor- 
rectnefs  of  it."  A<:f  Then,  Sir,  we  may  expect  to  rind  that 
in  your  Letters  the  matter  (lands  corrected.  We  will  pro- 
ceed in  the  review. 

In  the  26th  page  of  your  Letters,  the  public  is  informed, 
that  the  "  ftricr  truth,  however,  is,  that  it  {bapt'1%0)  does  not 
fignify  any  manner  of  applying  water,  but  only  the  applica- 
tion of  it  in  general."  I  confefs.  Sir,  that  this  aifertion, 
coming  from  a  man.  of  your  fenfe,  education,  and  veracity, 
is  a  little  to  be  wondered  at.  But  if  tills  aifertion  be  fup- 
portable,  we  may  undoubtedly  expect  to  find  it  proved  in 
fome  of  your  Letters  ;  that  bapthz.o  is  ufed  in  fome  one  in- 
flance  in  which  it  mall  manifeiUy  mean  fome  application  of 
water  which  does  not  and  cannot  imply  immeriion.  We 
hope  to  examine  carefully. 

Your  next  words  are  fufficiently  noticeable  :  they  are 
thefe, — "  As  your  initial  proof  is  thus  found  to  confift  in 
mere  aifertion,  I  had  thought  of  leaving  it,  as  fufficiently 
refuted  by  a  contiary  aifertion."  This,  Sir,  brings  to  my 
mind  what  Ahab  laid  to  Benhadad,  *  Let  not  him  that 
girdeth  on  the  harnefs  boaft  himfelf  as  he  that  putteth  it  off.' 


Let.  IV.]        Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aujlln*  2$ 

The  next  bufmefs  which  you  undertake,  is  to  make,  in 
my  judgment,  an  unnatural  and  a  fomewhat  dangerous 
addition  to  every  text  of  Scripture  in  which  the  word  baptizo 
is  ufed.  To  each  you  add,  by  affufton.  This  bufmefs,  which 
fills  your  pages  from  the  27th  to  the  33d,  I  {hall  leave  to 
the  reflection  of  your  readers,  and  turn  my  attention  to  your 
own  observations  on  what  you  had  done.  It  is  pleafing,  my 
dear  Sir,  that  you  do  not  appear  fully  farisfted  with  what 
you  have  done  :  I  defire  that  you  may  be  lefs  and  lefs  fatis- 
fied,  till  you  fhall  be  altogether  diilatisfied. 

You  conclude  that  the  co^Txexion  in  which  the  word  lap- 
tizo  is  ufed,  does  not  pieciude  the  pofLbility  of  baptilm 
being  adminiftered  by  affuiion.  You  do  not  intimate  in  your 
preirufes,  from  which  you  draw  your  conclufion,  that  there 
is  a  probability  that  the  ordinance  v.  as  ever  adminiftered  by 
affuiion,  but  that  there  is  a  pofjibility.  Hence  you  conclude, 
"  thai  if  this  be  admitted  as  a  poffible  thing,  it  is  evident  that 
my  aflertion,  reflecting  the  uniform,  exclufive  meaning  of 
the  word,  as  Signifying  immeriion,  and  that  only,  is  entirely 
without  foundation." 

Here,  Sir,  either  your  judgment  or  mine  is  incorrect :  for 
in  my  judgment,  I  may  admit  your  prenn'fes,  without  fear- 
ing the  conclusion.  I  would  reft  the  whole  caufe,  or  had  I 
liberty,  I  might  fafely  do  it,  upon  this  fingle  point,  that  ii: 
fhould  be  foriaken,  if  your  prefnifes,  -upon  their  being  true,  would 
harm  it.  Your  premifes  are, — fir  ft,  that  there  is  a  pcjjlbility, 
from  the  connexion  in  which  baptizo  is  ufed,  that  baptilm  was 
adminiltered  by  affufion  ;  fecondiy,  that  there  is  no  probabil- 
ity* from  the  connexion  in  which  lapiizo  is  ufed,  that  it  was 
ever  adminillered  in  that  way. 

Now,  Sir,  can  you  have  a  fmgle  query  in  your  mind, 
whether  a  gofpel  ordinance,  which  hath  nothing  for  its  au- 
thority but  pofitive  precepts,  may  not  be  duly  adminiftered, 
according  to  the  precepts  and  pattern  given,  when  it  is,  at 
the  fame  time,  adminitiered  in  a  manner  which  cannot  be 
fupported,  even  by  a  probability  arifing  from  fo  much  as 
one  text  out  of  fifty,  which  contain  precepts  or  examples 
relative  to  the  pofitive  ordinance  enjoined  ?  In  all  inch  moral 
cafes,  where,  from  the  connexion  of  any  pofitive  law  or 
ordinance,  there  may  be  a  poffibility  of  any  certain  thing 
being  enjoined,  yet  if  there  be  no  probability  of  it,  it  amounts 
to  a  moral  demontlration,  that  no  fuch  duty  was  cr  is  en- 
joined, unlels  we  would  reflect  the  higher!  reproach  upon 
the  Lawgiver. 


30  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aujlln.        [Let.  IV, 

AH  which  I  need  to  eftablifh  the  point,- with  all  who  fuit- 
ably  honour  the  Scriptures  and  the  Chriftian  Lawgiver,  is, 
to  prove  that  the  JiteraJ,  the  plain,  the  common  fenfe  of  the 
-Scripture  is,  that  to  be  buried  or  overwhelmed  in  water  is 
the  only  Chriftian  baptifm.  Ten  thousand  poflibilities  for 
any  thing  elfe,  arifmg  from  the  connexion  of  any  text  in 
which  the  word  baptizo  is  ufedf  would  not  alter  the  matter 
an  hair's  breadth. 

Befides,  Sir,  you  confefs  that  in  fome  inftances  there  ap- 
pears an  harfinefs  in  the  fupp1;^,  by  affufion,  arifing  from  the 
■•onnexion:  and  you  do  not  prefume  to  fay  that  it  is  eafy 
and  natural  in  any,  fave  in  thofe  pafiages  which  refer  to  the 
^baptifm  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  ;  of  which  fay  you,  wafer  baptifm 
is  undoubtedly  a  fymbol.  Hence,  if  I  prove  from  your  own 
conceffions,  that  the  baptifm  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  means  im- 
merfion  or  overwhelming,  you  will  yield  the  point  in  con- 
trol erfv,  or  renew  it  under  increafed  difadvantages. 

Now,  Sir,  to  the  point.  What  is  the  baptifm  of  the  Holy 
Ghofl,  judging  from  your  own  conceffions,  as  well  as  from 
the  word  ,of  God  I  Your  Letters  to  me  ihali  give  the 
anfwer. 

Speaking  of  Rom.  vi.  4.  you  fay,  page  45,  "  The  fpiritual, 
internal  baptifm  of  the  Holy  Ghoft,  exacVly  coincides  with 
the  whole  of  his  (the  apoftle's)  reprefentation,  and  invari- 
ably produces  the  effects  he  mentions." 

In  page  48,  fpeaking  of  Col.  ii.  12.  your  words  are,  "  It 
is  juft  like  the  other,"  i.  e.  it  is  juft  like  the  above  paffage, 
Rom.  vi.  4. 

In  the  paflkge  which  we  have  been  juft  confidmng.  pages 
33,  34,  you  tell,  us,  "Water  baptifm  is  undoubtedly  a  fym- 
bol of  the  baptifm  of  the  Holy  Ghoft,  which  is  a  figurative 
baptifm  ;"  pages  6o,  61. 

In  page  60  you  have  thefe  wrords, — "  There  muft  be  fome 
evident  lihenefs  between  the  fubjecl  to  which  a  word  is  applied, 
in  the  natural  and  primitive  ufe  of  it,  and  the  fubjeel  to 
which  it  is  applied  as  a  figure  ;  otherwife  there  is  a  grofs  im- 
propriety in  the  figurative  ufe  of  it." 

Now,  Sir,  permit  me  to  put  thefe  ideas,  concefEons,  and 
declarations  of  yours  together. 

1.  To  be  buried  with  Chrift  in  baptifm,  to  be  planted  in 
the  lihenefs  of  his  death,  to  be  buried  with  him  by  baptifm, 
and  to  be  rifen  with  him  in  baptifm,  Rom.  vi.  4,  5.  and 
Col,  ii.  12.  is  to  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghoft  ;  or  the 
"  baptifm  of  the  Holy  Qhoft  exactly  coincides  with  this 
reprefentation." 


Let.  V.I         Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Auftin.  31 

2.  "  There  is  an  evident  likenefs  between  the  natural  idea 
of  planting,  burying,  anc  as  rrom  the  dead,  and  the 
figurative  baptifm  of  the  Holy  Ghoit.,  or  there  is  a  grofs 
impropriety  (as  you  fay)  in  the  apoille's  figurative  life  cf  the 
words." 

3.  Water  baptifm  is  a  fymbel  or  figure  of  the  baptiira 
of  the  Holy  Ghoil  ;  it  is,  therefore,  a  burying,  a  planting, 
or  immerfion, — your  Letters,  as  well  as  the  word  of  God, 
being  judge. 

Hence,  Sir,  by  going  a  large  diftance  round,  to  avoid 
what  you  feared,  vou  have  proved,  to  my  hand,  what  I 
endeavoured  to  eitablifh  through  the  courfe  of  five  fermons. 

Though  I  approve  of  the  concluiion  to  which  you  have- 
brought  me,  yet  I  cannot  fay  that  I  conilnt  to  all  your 
premifes.  You  appear  to  me  to  be  incorrect,  in  fetting  down- 
time paifages  in  Rom.  vi.  4,  5.  and  Col.  ii.  12.  as  containing 
inftances  of  the  baptifm  of  the  Holy  Ghoit.  Should  you 
ever  in  the  world  be  a  thorough  Baptift,  or  if  not,  when  the 
light  of  heaven  (hall  give  you  light,  you  will,  if  I  miftake 
not,  fee  very  clearly  water  baptifm  pointed  out  in  both  thefe 
chapters. 

If  you  can  honeftly  get  by  the  above  argument,  and   flill 
retain  your  ground,  I  wifh  you  to  :  but  mould  the  arguir 
be  fe  le,  then  cheerfully  concede  that   truth   is 

(Ironger  than  man,  and   yield   to  her  fovereign    mandate. 
/Io  who  is  willingly   conquered  by   truth,   is  a  conqiH 
Celf. 

I  am  fincerely  yours,  &c. 


LETTER   V, 


It  E  V  E  P.  E  N  D    SIR, 

IN  your  fourth  Letter  you  manifefdy  difeovered  a  diflike 
to  my  aflTertions  and  arguments.  In  this  I  propofe  to 
give  my  readers  fouie  (liort  notices  of  what  I.  did,  both  as 
to  argument  and  affertibn  ;  and  alfo  fet  to  view  how  you 
attempted  to  wind  yourfelf  out,  and  how,  by  the  attempt, 
you  have  wound  yourfelf  up  in  them, 

My  fii-ft  argument,  to  prove  that  the  Greek  word  baptize 
means  to  immerfe,  bury,  &c  was — The  moll  learned  critics 
in  the  Greek  and  Englifh  languages,  bear  their  united  teiri- 
mony,  generally  fpeafeing,  againli  your  practice,  againft  t] 


32  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aujlln.         [Let*  V. 

own,  and  for  the  Baptifts,  that  the  common,  the  plain,  the 
literal  fenfe  of  the  word  is  as  i  hud  given  it.  Your  reply  is, 
"  To  have  recourfe  to  fuch  miferable  authorities,  to  deter- 
mine relative  to  an  efTential  arid  excluftve  article  of  Chriltian 
doctrine,  is  not  the  moft  refpectful  treatment  of  the  great 
Infpher  of  the  Bible."  The  only  end  which  I  had  to  an- 
iwer,  hy  quoting  the  definitions  and  critical  remarks  of 
critical  and  learned  men,  was  to  ascertain  the  definition  of 
a  word.  Do  you  fuppofe,  Sir,  that  I  and  the  reft  of  your 
readers,  were  all  of  us  born  with  innate  notions,  anfwering 
to  all  the  ideas  meant  to  be  communicated  by  all  the  He- 
brew, Syriac,  Arabic,  and  Greek  words  in  the  Bible  ?  If 
this  be  not  your  belief,  then  you  know  that  you  and  I,  and 
our  readers  too,  mud  gain  fome  of  our  firft  knowledge  from 
critics,  or  from  compilers  of  dictionaries,  lexicons,  and  other 
writings  of  men,  &c.  When  we  have  gained  what  knowl- 
edge is  at  hand,  as  to  the  meaning  of  any  word,  and  cur 
confequent  duty,  as  related  by  the  bell  of  men  ;  yet  if  there 
be  any  more  lure  word  of  prophecy,  we  mould,  as  did  the 
Bereans,  taV.e  heed  to  it.  Accordingly  I  did  in  the  fecond 
place  turn  to  the  word  of  the  Lord,  in  which  I  found  it 
thus  written,  Mark  i.  5.  *  And  there  went  out  unto  him 
(John)  all  the  land  of  Judea,  and  they  of  Jerufalem,  and 
were  all  baptized  of  him  in  the  river  of  Jordan/  Thus, 
.Sir,  by  comparing  the  teftimony  of  learned  men  and  the 
fufe  word  of  prophecy  together,  I  find  they  both  agree,  and 
therefore  believe  both. 

But,  Sir,  what  (hall  I  fay  to  your  reply  ?  Shall  I  tell  the- 
learned  world  that  Mr.  S.  Auftin,  who  would  not  allow  me 
to  conjoin  the  teftimony  of  learned  critics  with  that  of  the 
word  of  God,  in  order  to  make  fure  the  definition  of  a  word 
which  he  is  difpofed  to  controvert,  dares  himfelf  to  confront 
plain  Scripture  with  many  great  but  namelefs  critics  ?  Shall 
I  tell  it  in  Afkelon,  or  publiih  it  in  Gath,  that  the  fame  Mr. 
Auftin,  who  will  not  allow  a  dictionary,  lexicon,  or  con- 
cordance, each  functioned  by  the  learned  world,  to  fay  one 
word,  dare  fpoil  the  plain,  literal,  common,  and  only  fenfe 
of  a  plain  paiFage  of  Scripture,  when  all  the  authority  which 
he  pretends  to  pofTefs  is,  that  it  is  the  opinion  of  many  great 
critics,  that  John  actually  did  baptize  in  the  river  of  Jordan 
by  ajfufton  ?  Shall  I  tell  the  fame  learned  world,  that  ihe 
fame  Mr.  Auftin  affertr,.'n  his  public  Letters  to  me,  page  35, 
«  Thar,  the  fuppofed  evidence  of  this  paMage  muft  lie  wholly 
in  the  prepofuion  in,  and  that  applies  to  John  as  really  as  to 
thefubjects  of  his  adminiftraton  ?"  "  Nay,  (fays  Mr.  Auftin) 


Let.  V.]         Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Auftin.  33 

it  efpecially  relates  to  him  ;  the  confequence  is  obvious, — it 
is,  that  John  was  immerfed  at  every  adminiftration  of  the 
ordinance."  A  peribn  who  can  affert  thus  roundly,  without 
fo  much  as  a  (how  of  evidence,  and  call  it  arguing,  may  be 
expected  to  find  fome  fault  with  the  arTertions  and  pretended 
arguings  of  his  opponents.  But,  Sir,  I  have  a  little  more 
to  fay  of  this  argument  of  yours,  by  which  you  would  de-  • 
ftroy  my  evidence  from  Scripture.  You  fay,  "  This  confe- 
rence is  too  unpleafant  to  be  eafily  received.',  What  con- 
fequence ?  The  one  which  you  had  juft  drawn,  "  That  John 
was  himfelf  immerfed  at  every  adminiiiration  of  the  ordi- 
nance." This  confequence  you  draw  from  your  own  prem- 
ife,  "  that  the  prepofition  in  relates  efpecially  to  John," 
together  with  my  definition  of  laptizo,  that  it  is  to  immerfe. . 
Now  take  your  own  premife  and  your  own  definition,  if 
you  have  any,  or  take  your  affert  ion,  that  bapt'1%0  is  a  gene- 
ric term,  and  means  not  any  particular  kind  of  waihing, 
but  waihing  in  general,  or  any  application  of  water :  and 
what  is  the  confequence  ?  "  The  confequence  may  be  un- 
pleafant, and  too  unpleafant  to  be  eafily  received  :"  but  as 
unpleafant  as  it  may  be,  I  fliall  fet  it  down,  and  the  world 
will  judge  on  which  fide  the  unpleaiantnefs  falls.  The 
confequence  is — If  John  baptized  by  affuiion  every  time  he 
adminiftered  die  ordinance,  he  affufed  or  poured  water  on 
himfelf:  if  he  baptized  by  fprinkling,  then  at  every  admin- 
iftration he  was  fprinkled  himfelf :  ifheufed  water  in  any 
other  way,  in  the  admini'tralion  of  the  ordinance,  in  the 
fame  way  the  water  came  on  himfelf.  Thus,  Sir,  your  own 
argument  makes  nonfenfe  of  John's  baptifm,  take  it  in  any 
way  which  you  pleafe.  Either  John's  baptifm  muft  be 
given  up  in  whole,  or  your  method  of  managing  it. 

In  page  36,  you   are  pleafed  to  exprefs  yonrfelf  thus : : 
"  You  next,  for  lack  of  proof,  go  on   to  repeat  your  arTer- 
tions."    And  how  do  you  know  "  it  nvas  for  lack  of  proof  ?'y 
Is  it  always  the  cafe  with  you,  when  in.  your  fermons  you 
recapitulate  fome  particulars  which  you  had  parTed  over, 
that  you  do  it  for  lack  of  proof?    If  not,  your  accufation 
againft  me  may  not  be  well  founded.     A  little  afterwards, . 
fpeaking  of  my  recapitulation,  you  fubjoin,  "  My  dear  Sir, 
repetitions  and  aifertions   are  not  arguments.     We  afk  of. 
you   proof."     Proof,   Sir,   you  may  expect ;  proof  of  two 
kinds :  proof  that  your  examination  of  my  Sermons  was  not 
well  founded,  and  proof  that  no  fimilar  oppofition  will  be 
able  to  injure  the  leading  fentiments  which  they  contain.,. 

D   2^ 


34  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr,  Attftin.         [Let.  V. 

My  third  argument  was  to  this  purport :  Baphzo  and 
baptifmos,  though  they  be  molt  ufually  rendered  to  baptize 
and  baptifm,  yet  they  fometimes  fignify  to  warn ;  but  when 
thi-s  is  their  fignirkatioa,  the  wafting  fpoken  of  is  never 
common  wafhing,  but  ceremonial ;  which  is  bathing  the 
thing  in  water,  or  putting  it  all  over  in  water.  Upon  this 
you  fee  fit  to  obferve,  in  not  a  very  handfome  manner,  thus, 
"  But  how  you  could  ftumble  upon  this,  as  an  argument,  is 
incomprehenfible." 

My  readers,  Sir,  can  generally  nnderftand  me.  As  to 
this  argument,  which"  you  fay  is  incomprehenfible,  I  will  fet 
it  before  you  with  mathematical  plainnefs.  Baptizo  and 
baptifmos  equal  two  tranflations,  baptizing  and  a  certain  kind 
of  wafhing  ;  this  certain  kind  of  wafhing  equals  ceremonial 
wafhing,  which  is  to  bathe  a  thing  all  over  in  water,  or  to 
put  into  water,  Lev.  xi.  32.  ;  to  bathe  a  thing  all  over  in 
water,  or  to  put  into  water,  equals  immerfion  :  therefore, 
to  baptize  equals  to  immerfe,  and  immerfion  equals  baptifm. 
But,  Sir,  your  anfwer  is  ready,  and  it  is  this, — "  BaptfzS 
equals  nipto,  and  nipto  equals  common,  wafhing.''  Now, 
Sir,  lhow  me  in  any  paffage  of  the  New  Teftament,  where 
this  fhort  chain  of  yours,  of  only  three  links,  is  fupported, 
or  can  be  by  plain  affirmation  or  fair  deduction,  and  I  will 
confefs  that  I  have  run  my  claim  too  high.  It  is  eaiy  to 
fliow  you  where  you  will  go  for  proof,  and  it  is  equally  eafy 
to  fhow  you  that  it  is  not  in  point.  You  will  directly  repair 
to  Mark  vii.  or  to  Luke  xi.  Very  well.  What  do  you  find 
here  ?  In  Mark  you  find,  that  the  Pharifces,  except  they 
warn  they  eat  not ;  this  was  a  con  ft  ant  ceremony  among 
them,  and  nipto  is  ufed.  And  when  .they  come  from  the 
market,  except  they  wafh  (baptize,  or  bathe  themfelves  all 
over  in  water)  they  eat  not.  This  is  their  extraordinary 
ceremony  or  tradition.  This  was  to  be  obferyed  when  they 
had  been  to  the  market,  or  to  a  pomifcuous  aiTembly,  where 
clean  and  unclean  perfons  were  alTembled.  This  takes  up 
the  patfages  in  Luke  xi.  as  well  as  Mark  vii.  Now,  Sir, 
you,  and  thofe  who  have  written  before  you  on  your  inde- 
fenfible  ground;  would  palm  it  upon  both  learned  and  un- 
learned, upon  both  faint  and  fmner,  that  the  circumftancei 
are  fo  fimilar,  in  which  nipto  and  in  which  baptizo  are  ufed, 
that  the  words  are  equivalent,  when  the  very  texts  them- 
felves intimate  to  you  that  it  is  no  fuch  tiling.  One  halt 
of  your  fuppofed  ftrength,  and  imaginary  triumph,  is  found- 
ed upon  your  miftaking,  or  willingly  not  underftanding,  the 
above  pafl'ages.     Would  you  bring  us  half  fo  much  evi- 


Let.  V.]         Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Auftin.  $5 

dence  for  you,  as  there  5s  in  thefe  two  paffages  againft 
you,  we  would  allow  you  ibmething  plaufible.  But,  Sir, 
till  you  fhow  us  where  baptizo  and  nipto  are  equivalent,  we 
wifh  you  would  fay  lefs  about  it,  and  take  lefs  credit  for  the 
fuppofed  equivalency  of  them.  Equate  them,  or  make  them 
equal,  if  you  can  :  when  you  do  it,  we  will  be  filent,  or 
make  conceffions :  till  you  do  this,  common  civility  impofes 
.  filence  on  you.  The  other  half  of  your  fuppofed  ftrength, 
I  hope  to  remove  out  of  your  way  as  I  come  to  it. 

The  next  thing  which  requires  to  be  noticed,  in  your 
examination,  is  my  definition  of  the  word  loud,  and  your 
obfervations  relating  to  my  definition.  My  definition  of  loud 
was,  and  (till  is,  to  bathe  or  wain  a  thing  all  over.  You 
add  to  my  words,  and  fay  "  that  I  intend  immerfion."  I 
do  not ;  nor  did  I  ever  intend  to  define  loud  as  always  mean- 
ing immerfion.  All  which  I  have  faid  is  this,  that  loud  al- 
ways imports  a  wafhing  of  the  thing  or  fubject  all  over. 
You  fubjoin,  "  If  I  will  turn  to  John  xiii.  10.  I  ihall  find  evi- 
dence directly  and  conclufively  againft  this  idea."  Againft 
what  idea  ?  Againft  immerfion.  This  idea  of  immerfion, 
as  being  the  exclusive  fenfe  of  loud,  I  never  advocated.  But 
we  will  take  the  text  into  confederation  :  it  is  this, — *  Jefus 
faith  to  him,  fie  that  is  wafted  [o  kloumenos)  needeth  not 
fave  to  waih  his  feet,  but  is  clean  every  whit/  Here  you 
fay,  "  the  man  is  warned,  when  only  his  feet  are  warned." 
.Do  you  mean  to  contradict  the  text  ?  or,  Do  you  mean  that 
the  text,  by  a  figure  of  fpeech,  which  puts  a  part  for  the 
whole,  lays  the  man  is  warned,  when  it  intends  the  feet  only 
warned  ?  The  text  does  not  appear  to  be  perfectly  eafy 
to  be  underftood  ;  its.  purport  appears  to  be,  either  jirjly 
That  Peter  had  already  been  baptized,  {Jchumenos)  and  fo 
now  had  no  need  to  have  his  body,  as  Paul  expreifes  It, 
waflied  with  pure  water;  but  it  was  fuiHcient  for  the  object 
that  the  Saviour  had  at  this  time  in  view,  that  his  feet  be 
vfafhedj — as  that  would  be  fufficient  to  rranifeft  the  Sav- 
iour's condefcenfion,  and  to  teach  his  followers  humility : 
or,  Jccondly,  The  meaning  might  be,  that  lelourtienos  referred, 
by  a^  figure,  to  the  wafhing  of  the  man,  when  it  intended 
the  wafhing  of  the  feet  only.  Bat  upon  either  fuppofition, 
it  comes  to  the  fame  thing,  as  to  my  argument  from  it, 
tinlefs  you  can  fhow  that  the  feet  were  but  partially  waihed. 
For  all  whic-h  I  fay  or  wifh  to  maintain  is,  that  whenever 
loud  is  ufed  to  import  the  wafhing  of  any  thing  whatever,  it 
intends  that  the  thing  is  wafhed  all  over.  Should  you  upon 
this  conceftlon  fay,  and  I  grant  it  in  this  inftance,  and  in 


3 6  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aujlin. .        [Let.  V„ 

many  more,  that  loud  and  niptd  are  equivalent ;  would  it 
either  help  you  or  harm  me ;  would  it  be  to  your  purpofe  at 
all  ?  If  you  confider  it  to  be  fo,  I  will  grant  it ;  for  I  purpofe 
to  allow  you  every  inch  of  ground  to  which  you  can  appa- 
rently make  any  juft  claim. 

We  mud  now  compare  things  accurately. 

Baptizd  is  equal  to  immerfion,  and  to  nothing  fhort  of  it. 
Loud  is  fometimes  equal  to  baptizd  ;  then  loud  is  fometimes 
equal  to  immerfion,  as  when  Paul  fays,  our  bodies  (leloumenoi) 
warned  with  pure  water.  Loud  is  fometimes  equal  to  niptd  ; 
niptd  is  equal  to  the  warning  of  part  of  the  human  body  ; 
therefore,  and  what  ?  This,  Sir, — firft,  that  nipto  and  louo 
may  have  the  fame  import ;  and  fecondly,  that  when  niptd 
and  louo  agree,  they  neither  of  them  agree  with  baptizd ; . 
therefore,  and  what  ?  This,  Sir, — that  your  argument  comes 
to  juft  what  it  fliould,  to  nothing. 

Would  -you  obtain  the  leaft  advantage  from  the  fignifjca- 
tion  of  the  word  loud,  you  muft  prove  one  of  thefe  two 
things,— either  i.  That  loud  never  intends  immerfion,  and 
yet  is  fometimes  equivalent  to  baptizd ;  or  2.  That  loud,  in 
fome  certain  place  or  places,  where  it  is  fubftituted  for 
baptizd,  figniries  not  immerfion,  but  fomething  fhort  of  it. 
But  could  you  do  this,  which  you  neither  have  done  nor 
can  do,  ftill  nothing  would  be  gained,  unlefs  it.  be  this,  that 
it  would  ernbarrafs  my  principle,  without  helping  your 
own  ;  for  neither  baptizd,  loud,  nor  niptd,  is  ever  uicd  for 
rantizd  or  for  fprinhling. 

You  proceed.  Sir,  in  your  examination,  to  tell  us,  "That 
it  is  not  probable  that  the  dead  body  of  Dorcas  was  im- 
merfed ;  that  it  would  have  been  a  bad  way  to  have  im- 
merfed  Paul  and  Silas,  in  order  to  bathe  their  (tripes ;  and 
you  can  hardly  perfuade  yourfelf,  that  the  cuftom,  in  thofe 
days,  of  wafhing  the  fow  from  her  filth,  was  to  immerfe 
thofe  animals." 

All  this  trouble,  Sir,  you  have,  either  through  my  fault, 
in  exprefllng  myfelf  without  fufficient  perfpicuity,  or  through 
yours,  in  adding  to  my  words  ;  for  I  never  intended  any 
inch  thing.  What  I  wifhed  for  is  juft  this, — To  fhow  that 
loud  nqver  meant  any  thing  lefs  than  the  waihing  of  the  body 
or  thing  all  over.  The  world  muft  judge,  and  we  mail  both 
one  day,  whether  you  have  deduced  a  fingle  circumftance 
to  invalidate  the  idea  which  I  advanced ;  if  you  have  not, 
my  Sermons  yet  appear  uninjured  by  your  examination. 

One  paflage  which  I  pafled  over,  in  page  39,  I  will  here 
mention,  left  you  fhould  imagine  that  I  wilh  to  avoid  it,  oa 


Let.  VI.]        Letters  to  Rev.  Afr.  Ai  ^ 

account  of  fome  apparent  difficulty.  You  exprefs  it  thus  : 
•>  If  you  will  turn  to  Rev.  i.  5.  you  v.  ill  find  another  exam- 
ple, clearly  again!!  what  you  aifert,  refpecling  leuo.  The 
word  is  kloufantu      You  will  :end    that   Chrift  ever 

waihed  his  people  in  his  own  blood  by  immeiflng  them  in 
it ;  this  is  a  natural  in.,  :  the  word  here  I  grant  is 

uied  figuratively. "     Very  well,  Sir,  and  are  the  anfed 

thoroughly  ?  If  fo,  they  are  figuratively  wallied  all  over. 
This  is  all  that  I  afk  you  to  grant. 

Your  other  obiervations,  in  your  fourth  Letter,  are  fup- 
pofed  to  be  anfwered,  and  fo  fufpciently  reviewed  by  what  is 
already  faid. 

I  will  now  irate  the  bufmefs,  fo  far  as  it  appears  to  ftancl 
for  the  prefent  unembarrafled  by  your  examination.  Baptize 
is  to  immerfe,  bury,  overwhelm,  &c.  ;  louo  never  means  any 
thing  lefs  than  to  waft  a  thing  all  over  The  Holy  Spirit 
hath  made  v.ie  of  both  thefe  words,  and  of  thefe  only,  with 
their  derivatives,  except  in  John  iii.  5.  to  dell gnate  baptifm  : 
hence,  baptiim  can  mean  nothing  lefs  than  wafting  the  body 
all  over,  or  immerfmg  it,  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son, 
and  Holy  Ghoft.  There  is  no  denomination  in  the  world 
who  pracliies  this  baptiim,  but  thofe  who  are  Baptffts  as  to 
the  administration  of  the  ordinance  :  hence  thole  and  thole 
only  who  baptize  by  immerhon,  adminifter  the  Chriilian. 
ordinance  of  baptifm. 

Wifhing  you  more  light,  love,  and  knowledge  than  tha, 
writer  poiieiles, 

I  remain  yours,  Sec. 


LETTER   VL 

REV8REND    S  !  R , 

IT  is  manifeftly  a  matter  of  importance  with  you,  that 
the  world  ihouid  confider  Paul,  where  he  fpeaks  of 
baptiim,  Rom.  vL  and  Col.  ii.  12.  to  intend  the  baptifm  of 
the  Holy  Ghoft.  It  is,  indeed,  to  your  theory  of  baptifm, 
a  matter  of  the  greateft  magnitude,  to  have  thefe  paiiages 
refer  to  the  baptiim  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  ;  for  if  they  do  not, 
they  are  as  a  great  mill-Mere,  bound  about  the  neck  of  all 
arguments,  and  drown  them  all  as  in  the  fea.  So 
long  as  you  can  perfuade  the  prejudiced  and  inattentive  to 
diihelieve  the  plain  import  of  the  apoftle's  words  and  reafon- 


38  Letters  to  Rev,  Mr.  Aujlln.        [Let.  VI. 

ings,  fo  long  you  may  prevent  their  feeling  the  force  of  thefe 
pailagesl  But  what  will  the  world  think  of  your  reafonings, 
and  the  blindnefs  which  they  gather  from  them,  provided  it 
be  here  mown,  as  it  indeed  hath  already  been,  that  though 
we  grant  all  your  premifes,  the  conclufion  from  them  is 
fairly  and  undeniably  this, — that  immerfion  is  the  only  gof- 
pel  baptifm*  All  your  objection  againft  allowing  that  the 
apoftle,  in  Romans  and  Coloilians,  alludes  to  and  intends 
water  baptifm,  is  coniidered  to  arife  from  an  apprehenfion 
that  immerfion  would  certainly  follow.  But  we  will  attend 
to  your  premifes. 

In  pages  33,  34,  your  words  are,  Water  baptifm  is  un- 
doubtedly a  lymbol  of  the  baptifm  of  the  Holy  Ghoft. 

Pages  44,  45,  you  inform  us  that  thefe  paffages,  To  be 
buried  with  Cirri  ft  by  baptifm  into  death,  to  be  buried  with 
Chrift  in  baptifm,  and  to  be  raifed  with  him  in  baptifm, 
according  to  Rom.  vi.  4.  and  Col.  ii.  12.  can  never  be 
proved  to  have  any  refpect  or  even  allulion  to  external  water 
baptifm. 

Again  you  tell  us,  page  60,  "  There  muft  be  fome  evi- 
dent likenefs,  between  the  fubjecl  to  which  a  word  is  applied 
in  the  natural  and  primitive  ufe  of  it,  and  the  fubject  to 
which  it  is  applied  as  a  figure,  otherwife  there  is  a  grofs 
impropriety  in  the  figurative  ufe  of  it." 

Hence,  Sir,  baptifm  is  fpoken  of  under  the  fimilitude  or 
figure  of  burying  and  riling  again.  You  reply,  This  is  the 
baptifm  of  the  Holy  Ghoft.  Grant  it :  yet  you  tell  us, 
Water  baptifm  is  undoubtedly  a  fymbol  (i.  e.  an  emblem  or 
figure)  of  the  baptifm  of  the  Holy  Ghoft.  You  may  add, 
There  is  no  likenefs  between  the  baptifm  of  the  Holy  Ghoft, 
and  burying  and  rifing  again.  But,  Sir,  you  have  declared 
to  us,  that  "  there  mull  be  fome  evident  likenefs  between  a 
fubject  to  which  a  word  is  applied  in  the  natural  and  primi- 
tive r.fe  of  it,  and  the  fubjeel  to  which  it  is  applied  as  a- 
figure,  otherwife  there  is  a  grofs  impropriety  in  the  figurative 
ufe  of  it." 

Now,  Sir,  I  fee  but  two  things  between  which  you  muft 
choofej  either,  1.  That  water  baptifm  hath  an  evident  like- 
nefs to  a  burial  and  refurrection  ;  or,  2.  That  the  apoftle 
was  guilty  of  a  grofs  impropriety  in  the  figurative  ufe  which 
he  made  of  the  words  burying  and  the  refurrection.  Take 
which  you  plcafe. 

You  will  pleafe  to  review  your  aflertion,  page  47,  "  That 
the  above  texts  in  Romans  and  ColorTians,  do  not  even  fur- 
nilh  the  fnadow  of  proof  for  baptifm  by  immorfton." 


Let,  VI.]        Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aujlln.  39 

In  the  clofe  of  your  fifth  Letter  you  fet  down  thefe  mem- 
orable words :  "  Ail  your  potent  reasoning  here,  in  a  few 
words,  is  this — The  word  baptizo  means  to  imrrierfe,  there- 
fore the  apoftles,  becaufe  they  were  commanded  to  baptize, 
practifed  immerfion,  and  their  practice  of  immeriion  in  bap- 
tizing proves  that  bapt'1%0  means  to  immerie.  Whether  this 
be  arguing  in  a  circle,  or  arguing  at  all,   I  entreat  you  to 

\r,  take  advice,  and  /peak  four  mind." 
Sir,  I  have  confidered,  and   find   that  you  have  given  a 
partial  ftatement  of  my  poor  arguing,  if  I  argued  at  all.     I 
have  taken  advice  of  that  part  of  my  third  Sermon  which 

are  profeifedly  examining.     Now,  Sir,  I  will  fpenk  my 

d«  It  is,  firf},  That  your  critical  readers  will  doubt  the 
torrednefs  of  your  concluding  aflertion,  (which  is  quoted 
above,)  judging  from  the  quotations  which  you  have  made 
from  my  Sermons,  pages  36,  37,  38,  39.  Secondly,  My 
mind  is,  that  an  argument  is  good,  though  of  a  circular 
form,  provided  every  part  contains  its  own  proper  evidence. 
My  mind  is,  thirdly,  That  it  is  a  good  rule,  to  put  in  the 
middle  of  our  arguing  thofe  particulars  on  which  we  place 
the  leail  dependence,  and  that  in  the  beginning  and  clofe  of 

and  e\ery  arguing  of  weight,  our  particulars  lhould  be 
able  to  fuftain  the  ihock  of  our  opponent's  opposition.  My 
mind  is,  fourthly,  That  you  have  told  the  world  that  all  my 
potent  reasoning  refts  upon  thofe  particulars  in  which  I  never 
placed  much  confidence  ;  whereas,  were  I  to  tell  them  where 
tiie  ftrengtrh  of  the  reaibning  lays,  my  information  would  be, 
that  it  lays,  firft,  in  the  determinate  meaning  of  the  apoflle's 
word,  by  which  he  expreffes  the  thing  done  in  the  ordinance 
of  baptifm,  without  uiing  the  more  common  word  baptizo, 
as  Keb  x.  22.  'Having  our  bodies  (leloumenoi)  warned  with 
pure  water,  &c.'  Lahiy,  that  the  ftrength  of  my  reaibning 
jay  in  the  Similitudes  which  Paul  ufes,  when  he  would  illuf- 
trate  what  is  done  to  the  perfons  baptized,  or  what  takes 
place  in  baptifm ;  that  the  fubjects  are  buried  and  railed 
again  in  baptifm  :  this  I  coniidered  fufficient  to  make  mani- 
fest the  practice  of  the  apoftles.  My  mind  is,  fifthly,  That 
the  above  reafons  mayexcufe  the  circular  appearance  of  my 
argumentation;  or  if  they  will  not,  thefe  reafons  are  fufti- 
cient  of  themfelves  to  eftablifh  what  I  wifhed,  afide  from 
the  two  middle  particulars,  which  excited  your  obferv:>i*ons. 
My  mind  is,  fifthly,  That  were  your  Letters,  arguments, 
and  their  author  ufed  in  a  fimilar  manner,  you  would  com- 
plain of  unfairnefs.  My  mind  is,  laftly,  To  leave  it  with 
oar  readers,  to  form  what  judgment  they  pleafe  upon  th£ 


40   .  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aujlhu        [Let.  VI. 

conclufivenefs  or  weaknefs  of  our  arguments,  and   with  re- 
fpecl:  to  the  truths  which  we  advocate  or  oppofe. 

Your  fixth  Letter  comes  next,  that  it  may  pafs  in  review  : 
in  which  you  bring  forward  what  you  term  unequivocal  and 
indifputable  evidence.  If  it  be  unequivocal  and  indifputable, 
you  need  have  no  apprehenfions  with  relation  to  it,  while  it 
may  pafs  a  candid  review. 

Page  52,  fay  you,  "  It  will  not  be  denied  that  the  word 
?iipto,  which  is  fometimes  ufed  as  equivalent  with  baptlzo, 
generally  means  a  partial  wafhing.  I  have  produced  two 
or  three  examples,  in  which  it  is  indifputable  that  the  word 
lotto  is  ufed  in  the  like  partial  lenfe,  and  in  not  one  is  it  clear 
that  it  is  ufed  to  iignify  total  immerfion,.  I  will  now  add 
unequivocal  evidence,  to  prove  the  direct  contrary  of  your 
sfTertion,  that  the  words  bapt'1%0  and  baptifmos  have  not  always 
the  extenfive  fenfe  of  immerfion,  but  fometimes,  at  leaft, 
intend  the  application  of  water  in  a  partial  manner." 

I.  "  In  Luke  xi.  38.  it  is  too  plain  to  admit  of  any  con- 
troverfy,  that  baptizo  is  ufed  in  a  l^nic  different  from  that  of 
a  total  immerfion  in  water  of  the  mbjecl  to  which  it  is  ap- 
plied : — *  And  when  the  Pharnee  faw  it,  he  marvelled  that 
he  had  not  firft  walhcd  before  dinner.'* 

Anj\  Sir,  your  not  knowing1  the  traditionary  laws  of  the 
Pharifees,  and  your  inattention  to  the  connexion  and  plain 
import  of  this  paffage  in  Luke,  and  in  that  of  Mark  vii.  is 
the  only  excufe-which  can  be  made  for  you,  whilft  you  very 
incautioufly,  and  with  great  boldnefs,  molt  roundly  contra- 
dict the  plain  word  of  the  Lord,  in  what  you  fay  on  thefe 
paifages,  from  page  52  to  57. 

The  laws  traditionary  among  the  Pharifees  were,  among 
others,  thefe  two  :  1.  "  They  eat  not  bread,  or  any  common 
meal,  at  any  common  time,  except  they  wafh  their  hands  ;" 
2.  "  When  they  come  from  the  market,  or  from  a  crowded 
aifembly  of  clean  and  unclean  per'fons,  they  baptize  them- 
felvcs,  or  were  baptized  ;"  that  is,  they  immeried  or  bathed 
themfelves  all  over  in  water.  This  iecond  law  carries  its 
own  traditionary  evidence  with  it,  fo  that  it  is  at  once  obvi- 
ous, upon  our  underitanding  the  reafon  of  the  firft.  The 
realbn  of  the  firft,  or  of. their  wafhing  their  hands,  was,  left 
they  had  touched  fome  unclean  thing,  and  fo  their  hands 
mig#*t  have  contracted  fome  defilement.  Now,  the  reafon 
of  their  immerfing  or  baptizing  themfelvcs,  when  they  came 
from  the  market,  or  from  the  midil  of  a  promifcuous  multitude, 
is  manifeft  ;  for  in  fueh  places,  and  in  fuch  company,  they 
gould  not  tell  on  what  part  their  defilement  might  be ;  thejr 


Let.  VI.]       Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Auftin.  41 

muft,  therefore,  ceremonially  cleanfe  themfelves,  or  be  cere- 
monially cleanfed,  all  over :  they  muft  make  the  outfide 
clean,  according  to  their  traditionary  law. 

This,  Sir,  exactly  agrees  with  what  is  related  of  this  mat> 
ter  by  both  Mark  and  Luke. 

As  you  have  firft  taken  the  pafTage  in  Luke,  fo  I  will 
mention  the  circumftances  of  that  firft.  The  p?.fTage  is, 
•When  the  Pharifee  fa*v  it,  he  marvelled  that  he  had  not 
firft  wafhed  (or  was  not  firft  immerfed)  before  dinner.' 
The  noticeable  circumftances  are  two  1.  Jefus  had  come 
from  a  promifcuous  alTembly,  where  r1  :  people  were  gathered 
thick  together ',  verle  29.  2.  The  re^rcof  which  our  Lord 
gave  the  Pharifees,  «  Now  do  ye  P  *arifees  make  clean  the 
cutjide  of  the  cup  and  platter?  plai  y  referring  to  the  tradi- 
tionary wafhing,  immeriing,  or  baptizing  their  bodies,  when 
they  had  been  publidly  expofed  to  contract,  as  they  fuppofed, 
fome  outward  defilement. 

As  to  the  paftage  in  Mark  v  i.  the  matter  appears,  if 
poflible,  ftill  more  explicit.  In  t'.e  fecond  verfe,  the  Phari- 
fees found  fault,  becaufe  Chrift'':  difciples  ate  bread  with 
unwafhen  hands  :  in  the  third,  we  are  told  that  the  Pharifees 
ate  not,  unlefs  they  wafhed  their  hands  with  exactnefs,  or 
rubbing  them  :  and  in  the  fourth  verfe,  we  have  an  account 
of  their  carrying  th:ir  fuperftit:  m  ftill  farther  ;  for  when 
they  came  from  the  market,  they  ate  not  except  they  baptized 
themfelves,  or  wafhed,  or  bached  .11  over.  This,  Sir,  makes 
the  Scripture  all  eafy  and  l^.atural.  Bat  this  plain,  fair,  and 
natural  expoikion  of  Scripture  yery  illy  fuits  you^unferip- 
tural  and  unchriftian,  or  amichri  tian,  practice  of  rantixing 
for  baptizing,  or  fprinkling,  or  partial  walhing,  for  the  gofpel 
Ordinance  of  immerfion. 

You  produce  not  one  text  of  Scripture  to  prove  your 
affertions,  or  any  other  authority,  fave  Grotius,  "  who  (70U 
fay)  is  the  mot  rcipe&able  wricer  that  ever  appeared  on  oui 
fide  of  the  queiiion  ;"  and  he  admits  your  expoikion  ;  but, 
Sir,  I  do  notj  nor  does  the  word  of  God  admit  it.  Nor 
have  you,  nor  can  you  find  fo  much  as  a  fingle  pafTage  in 
the  word  of  God,  where  baptixo  and  nlpto  are  ufed,  but  the 
attending  circumftances  will  fhow  that  they  mean  different 
things,  or  a  different  application  of  the  fame  thing. 

In  page  55,  fpeaking  of  Luke  xi.  38.  you  fay,  "This  paf- 
fage  has  been  often  mentioned  by  Paedobaptift  writers,  but 
fomehow  the  proper  light  in  which  it  prefents  itfelf  is  ftrange- 
\j  overlooked  by  you  and  your  brethren."     The  proper 


42  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aujlin.        [Let.  VL 

light,  Sir,  we  confiderto  be  Scripture  light ;  this  we  believe 
God  hath  ihown  us  :  by  this  light  we  difcover  your  mifap- 
plication  of  the  pafTage.  You  fubjoin,  "  That  Mr.  Cleave- 
land  made  uie  of  it,  we  have  your  authority,  under  the  fol- 
lowing quotation  from  him, — "  Your  learned  men  know 
that  the  word  hapti%o\  Luke  xi.  38.  and  lapi'ifmos,  Mark  vii. 
5.  are  ufed  to  fignify  the  fame  as  mptb  is ;  that  is,  proper 
walhing,  or  making  clean  by  the  application  of  water,  in 
cafes  that  do  not  neceflarily  require  dipping,  as  the  mode  of 
waihing."  You  anfwer  by  flatly  contradicting  the  good 
man's  aflertion :  nay,  you  go  farther,  and  fay,  that  the 
learned  men,  in  no  other  clafs,  know  any  inch  thing. "  You, 
bir,  are  pleuied  to  add,  "  They  certainly  do  know  it,  as  iai 
as  the  Bible  furnimes  them  with  information."  Reply.  True, 
but  the  Bible  furnifnes  them  with  no  fuch  information.  You 
{till  fubjoin,  "  I  am  forry,  my  dear  Sir,  that  you  have  not 
given  us  a  better  fpecimen  of  your  modefty."  Falfe  mod- 
efty afide,  Sir,  when  you  or  your  brethren  would,  by  wreft- 
ing  the  Scriptures,  force  from  us  and  from  the  world  the 
precious  ordinance  of  baptifm,  and  even  the  knowledge  of  it. 

We  now  proceed  to  what  you  fet  down  as  undeniable 
evidence.  Your  words  are,  page  57,  "Another  cafe  in 
which  the  word  baptizo  is  undeniably  ufed  to  convey  an  idea 
entirely  different  from  that  of  complete  immerfion,  occurs 
1  Cor.  x.  2.  *  And  were  ail  baptized  (claptij'anto)  unto  Mofes 
in  the  cloud  and  in  the  fea." 

Here  let  Paul  explain  himfelf,  or  let  the  preceding  verfe 
explain  what  this  means.  The  preceding  \crfe  is,  *  More- 
over, brethren,  I  would  not  that  ye  mould  be  ignorant,  how 
that  all  our  fathers  were  wider,  the  cloud,  and  ail  paffttd 
through  the  fea :'  then  follows,  verfe  2,  '  And  were  alj 
tized  unto  Mofes  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  lea.'  How  dots 
this  "  undeniably  convey  an  idea  entirely  different  iiom  that 
of  complete  immerfion  ?'  It  looks  to  me  fomewhat  like  the 
fame  idea.  It  certainly  has  the  appearance  of  being  over- 
whelmed, or  completely  eiicomp ailed.  They  were  all  u\ 
the  cloud,  they  all  paifed  through  the  fea  ;  they  were  baptized 
;n  the  cloud  and  in  the  f.-a.  This  your  undeniable  evidence 
iigainll  the  idea  of  immerfion,  appears,  upon  the  very  fae* 
of  it,  to  favour,  firongly  to  favour,  -the  very  truth  which 
you  brought  it  to  deftroy.  Thus,  ^Sir,  your  unequivocal 
evidence,  and  your  undeniable  evidence,  and  all  your  evi- 
dence, which  you  bring  againft  immerfion,  as  the  only  gof- 
pel  baptifm,  turn  out  like  Balaam,  whom  Balak  hiied  to 
curie  Ifrael,— they  bkft  it  ahq$etberi 


Let,  VI. j        Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aujlln.  43 

The  next  witnefs  which  yon  produce  will  not  be  particu- 
larly noticed,  .tor  you  confeis,  laying1,  u  I  do  not  contend 
that  it  is  conclulive."  Bnt,  fay  you,  "The  pafTage  in  Heb. 
ix.  10.  it  appears  to  me,  is  concluiive.''  It  fhall,  then,  btf 
fpeciaily  noticed.  "  It  determines  (fay  you)  that  bapti^o, 
and  I  ipti  :  ■  its  derivative  to  be  generic  terms,  comprehend- 
ing feveral  ways  of  applying  water,  without  fpecifically 
defignating  either — 'Which  (rood  only  in  meats,  and  drinks, 
and  divers  wafhings,  [diaphorois  baptlfmois)  &c.'  Thefe  bap- 
tiims  were  undoubtedly  ad  thofe  applications  of  fluids  which 
were  prescribed  in  the  Moiaic  law." 

Had  you  read  yoiir  text  three  words  further,,  and  taken 
foitable  notice  of  them,  they  would  have  fpoiled  your  con- 
chifion.  You  will  permit  me  to  read  the  text,  with  the  three 
additional  words:  it  is  thus. — 'Which  Rood  only  in  meats, 
and  drinks,  and  divers  waitings,  and £arnal ordinances?  I  •  , 
Sir,  the  conclauon  is,  "  Thefe  baptifms  were  undoubtedly 
not  all  thofe  applications  of  fluids  which  were  prefciibed  in 
the  Mofaic  law  ;  for  carnal  ordinances  comprife  the  ordi- 
nances of  God  concerning  bloody  facrifices.  Thefe  ordi- 
nances comprife  the  fprinkling  of  blood,  and  the  allies  of 
an  heifer,  &c.  Hence,  Sir,  your  conclufion  is  defective,  and 
fo  fpoiled. 

Our  next  inquiry  fhall  be,  What  are  the  wafhings  in  trie 

ceremonial  law  ?  Then  we  fhall  inquire  whether  thefe  wafh- 

-  compared  with  the  text,  do  not  fpoil'your  conclufii  a 

•    it  ?    Your  conclufion  is,  That  divers  wafhings  include 

(prinklingj  as  the  fprinkling  of  blood,  and  the  allies   of  an 

heifer,  &c. 

The  ceremonial  wafhings,  mentioned  in  the  law,  appear 
to  be  at  mod  but  of  feven  kinds,  and  fome  of  thefe  have  but 
fli]  ht  (hades  of  difference.  Thefe  kinds  are,  as  I  fhall  men- 
n, — 

f.  ''It  fhall  he  rinfed  m  water,'  Lev.  vi.  28.  This  obvi- 
rfion. 

2.  *  Aaron  and  his  ions  fhall  waft  their  feet  at  the  laver,' 
!.  >:xx.  18,  19.     This  might  be  performed  by  immerfmg, 

their  hands  and  their  feet,  and  it  might  not. 

3.  '  It  fhall  be  ft cured  in  water,'  Lev.  vi.  28.     This  fup- 
2s  immerfion. 

4.  '  He  fhall  wafh  his  clothes  in  water,'  Lev.  xiv.  9. 
This  implies  immerfion. 

5.  'He  fhall  bathe  himfelf  In  water,  he  fhall  wafh  all  his 
fleih  in  water,'  Lev.  xv.  n,  16.  This  taken  literally  is  in>- 
merfion* 


44  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Axtftin.       [Let.  VI. 

6.  «  Aaron  and  his  fons  thou  (Mofes)  (halt  bring  untifc 
the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation,  and^fhalt 
wafh  them  with  water,'  Exod.  xxix.  4.  This  means,  ac- 
cording to  the  probability,  not  immerfion.    . 

7.  «It  muft  be  put  into  water,'  Lev.  xi.  32.  This  is 
manifeftly  immerfion. 

We  fhall  now  inquire  whether  thefe  wafhings,  compared 
with  the  text,  which  faith  divers  wafhings,  do  not  fpoil  your 
conclufion.  Your  conclufion  is,  that  divers  wafhings  include 
fprinklings,  all  kinds  of  the  fprinklings  of  fluids,  as  the  fprink- 
lings of  blood,  and  of  the  afhes  of  an  heifer,  &c. 

Here  it  is  worthy  of  note,  that  in  no  place  is  warning 
called  fprinkling,  or  fprinkling  called  warning.  Is  your 
conclufion  fpoiled  ?  It  is  likewife  worthy  of  your  particular 
obfervation,  that  in  the  Mofaic  law  there  are  feveral  fpecies 
of  ceremonial  wafhings,  which  evidently  imply  immerfion  ; 
fuch  as  rinfing,  fcouring  in  water,  putting  into  water,  and  the 
like.  Now,  Sir,  how  do  you  know  that  Paul,  or  the  Holy 
Ghoft  by  him,  included  in  (diapborois  baptifmois)  divers  wafh- 
ings, any  other  kind  of  warning  but  thofe  kinds  which  imply 
immerfion  ?  There  appears  no  intimation,  from  the  words 
afed,  from  the  connexion,  or  from  common  fenfe,  that  any 
waihing  which  does  not  imply  immerfion  was  meant.  If  you 
do  not  know  that  any  other  kind  of  wafhing  is  intended,  then 
you  do  not  yet  know  but  my  fentiment  as  to  the  iignificatioa 
of  baptizo  is  correel:  in  every  part,  completely  fo. 

But  as  this  text  is  your  laft  refort,  I  will  juft  obferve  to 
you  and  the  public,  that  even  were  your  ideas  ©f  the  text, 
and  your  conclufion  too,  as  to  its  including  fprinkling,  all 
admitted,  and  fully  granted,  it  would  not  put  my  general 
principle,  that  baptifm  by  immerfion  is  the  only  gofpel  bap- 
tifm,  to  any  danger  ;  for  were  there  a  thoufand  fpecies  or 
kinds  of  baptifm,  there  is,  however,  but  one  which  is  a  gof- 
pel ordinance,  as  Paul  affures  us  in  his  epiftle  to  the  Ephe- 
fians  ;  and  this,  one  kind  of  baptifm  is  the  kind  which,  as  Paul 
tells  us  in  Romans  and  Coloffians,  and  as  you  by  confe- 
rence confefs,  has  an  evident  likenefs  to  burying  and  rifing 
again.  Baptifm  by  immerfion  is  the  only  baptifm  which 
hath  this  evident  likenefs.  Hence,  Sir,  whether  you  will  be 
judge  yourfelf,  or  leave  it  with  Paul,  it  comes,  when  we  put 
matters  together,  to  the  fame  thing.  Baptifm  by  immerfion 
is  the  only  gofpel  baptifm  :  hence,  Sir,  your  fprinkling  for 
baptifm,  or  your  partial  wafhing  for  baptifm,  or  your  warn- 
ing with  rubbing  for  baptifm,  all  turn  out  unfcriptural  and 
of  man's  invention. 


Let.  VII.  J      Leuers  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aujlin.  45 

Your  pofitioji,  Sir,  is  indeed  a  trying  one  to  a  benevolent 

You  believe  fprinkliitg  or  partial  waftriug  to  be  bap- 

You  have  laboured    much  to   prove  that  there  are 

e  baptifms  than   one,  hoping  in  this  way  to   ertablifh 

filing  for  baptifm,  as  a  neceflary  confeqnence.     Where- 

:6ftld  you  prove  what  you  have  not,  and  what  we  believe 

you  never  can,  that  there  are  baptifms  which  do  not  imply 

immerfion,  overwhelming,  or  the  like,  ilili  it  would   afford 

no  more  evidence,  that  fpripkling  or  any  partial  wafting  is 

el  baptifm,   than  it   proves  that   Mcfes?  fprinkling  the 

bloi  :   upon  the  people,  or  afhes  into  the  air, 

is  g<  :  .  for  Chriftians  have  but  ohe  gofpel  bdp 

.  iv,  5.  ana  if  you  have  more,  the}  belong  to  another 
gofpel,  and  are  oi  AutichritVs  invention. 

I  am  yours,  Sic, 


LETTER   VIL 

.  :  r  , 

N  the  beginning  of  your  feventh  Letter,  "you  requeft 
0  eonfider  what  concluhon  we  are  naturally  to  draw 
t^ofe  places  in  which  the  word  baptizo  is  ufed  figura- 
yS*  This  T  have  already  done  in  a  preceding  Letter, 
and  the  conclusion  which  we  found  to  flow  naturally  fiom 
it,  was  immerfion ;  for  you  informed  us,  that  Paul  fpake^  of 
this'  baptifm,  or  defcribed  it  by  the  figurative  language, 
burying,  planting,  and  rifmg.  You  alio  in  this  place  inform 
u#,  M  that  there  mult  be  fome  evident  likenefs  between  the 
iubiect  to  which  a  word  is  applied  in  the  natural  primitive 
ufe  of  it,  and  the  fubject  to  which  it  is  applied  as  a  figure  ; 
otherwjfe  there  is  a  grofs  impropriety  in  the  figurative  ufe 
©£  it."  The  concluiion  is  hence  perfectly  natural,  thai  when 
baptizo  is  ufed  figuratively,  it  means  a  figurative  immerfion, 
that  is,  a  figurative  burying  and  refurrection,  or  immerfion 
in  fome  element  or  thing,  afide  from  water. 

I  might  have  added  no  more  here,  on  the  baptifm  of  the 
Holy  Ghoft,  did  I  confider  your  obfervations  fufficiently 
explicit  and  accurate :  but  as  the  matter  is,  more  muft  be 
faid.  ^ 

Whilfl  fpeaking  of  the  pouring  out  of  the  Spirit,  as  men- 
tioned by  the  prophet  Joel,  ii.  28.  you  exprefs  your  fenti- 
E  2 


46  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aujl'nu      [Let.  VII. 

ment  in  the  following  manner  :  "  This  prophecy  the  apoftle 
Peter  exprefsly  applies  to  the  affufion  of  the  Spirit  on  the 
difciples,  on  the  memorable  day  of  Pentecoft,  when  they 
were  filled  with,  not  plunged  in,  the  Holy  Ghoft,  and  began 
to  fpeak  with  other  tongues,  as  the  Spirit  gave  them  utter- 
ance. According  to  your  ftrange  treatment  of  this  pafTage, 
which  furely  is  (fay  you  to  me)  more  like  rant  than  reafon- 
ing,  the  found  and  the  Spirit  were  the  fame  thing,  and  the 
apoftles  were  overwhelmed  with,  or  immerfed  in,  found." 

Anf.  I  faid  not  that  the  apoftles  were  plunged,  over- 
whelmed, or  immerfed  in  found  :  I  faid  this, — that  the  houfe 
was  filled  with  the  found,  wind,  or  Spirit  from  heaven,  and 
that  the  apoftles  were  overwhelmed,  for  all  the  houfe  where 
they  were  fitting  was  filled.  I  left  it  with  you  to  determine 
with  what  the  houfe  was  filled,  whether  with  found,  wind, 
or  Spirit :  but  as  you  have  determined  riot  according  to  my 
liking,  that  it  was  filled  with  found,  1  mud  (till  add,  and 
will  do  it  as  explicitly  as  I  can. 

The  operation  wrought  on  the  morning  of  the  memorable 
day  of  Pentecoft,  let  it  be  what  it  may,  was  the  baptizing 
of  the  difciples  with  the  Holy  Ghoft,  as  Chrift  promifed, 
Acts  i.  5.  y 

Qucfl.     What  was  now  done  ? 

Anf.     Three  things  were  done. 

1.  There  was  a  found  from  heaven  as  of  a  mighty  rufhing 
wind,  (this  is  what  attended  the  pouring  out  of  the  Spirit 
from  heaven,)  and  it  filled  all  the  houfe  where  they  were 
fitting.  What  filled  all  the  houfe  ?  You  may  reply,  Sound 
filled  all  the  houfe  ;  but  is  your  reply  warranted  from  the 
text,  and  circumftances  attending  ?  Is  it  not  much  more 
confiftent  with  truth,  and  with  the  intent  of  the  text,  to  fay 
that  all  the  houfe  was  filled  with  the  remarkable  prefence 
and  power  of  theTIoly  Ghoft  ?  To  me,  the  latter  is  the  im- 
portant and  juft  fenfe  of  the  text. 

2.  Another  thing  done  was,  there  appeared  unto  them 
cloven  tongue's  as  of  fire,  and  it  fat  upon  each  of  them. 

3.  They  were  all  rilled  with  the  Holy  Ghoft. 

Nowj  Sir,  you  will  judge,  or  let  common  fenfe  judge,  what 
part,  or  whether  every  part  of  this  operation  comes  in  to 
make  up  wrhat  is  called  the  baptifm  of  the  Holy  Ghoft.  To 
me,  it  is  a  plain  cafe  that  the  difciples  were  encompaifed  or 
overwhelmed  with  the  divine  glory,  or  with  the  remarkable 
prefence  of  the  Holy  Ghoft,  as  well  as  filled  with  it ;  and 
that  this  was  the  baptifm  which  was  predicted  and  accem- 
plilhed. 


Let.  VII.]      Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aujlin.  47 

As  to  the  text,  1  Cor.  xii.  1 3.  *  For  by  one  Spirit  are  we 
all  baptized  into  one  body/  the  import  appears,  from  the 
connexion,  to  be  this, — all  Chriitians,  though  of  very  differ- 
ent gifts  and  graces,  are  all  bound  and  inclofed  by  one  Spirit, 
in  one  myftical  body. 

Your  collateral  arguments  mud  now  pafs  a  fliort  re- 
view. 

Neither  you  nor  my  readers  would  be  troubled  with  any 
attention  to  thefe,  but  I  wifti  to  meet  and  remove  every 
thing  which  prefents  even  a  plaufible  difficulty  in  my  way. 

After  having  exhaufted  your  arguments,  which  poffefs 
any  apparent  or  fuppofed  formidablenefs,  you  obferve,  page 
62,  "  Other  collateral  arguments  againit.  the  juftnefs  of  your 
propoikion  readily  occur.', 

I.  "  There  being  not  a  word  faid,  in  any  cafe  of  baptifm, 
about  the  perfcns  changing  their  apparel,  and  going  to  a 
bath  or  river,  for  the  exprefs  and  evident  purpoie  of  being 
hnmerjl-d." 

AnJ\  X)id  you  never  read,  Mat.  iii.  13.  'Then  cometh 
Jefus  from  Galilee  to  Jordan  unto  John,  (for  what?)  to  be 
baptized  of  him.'  The  plain}  literal,  and  common  import 
of  this  is,  as  we  have  ihown  from  your  Letters,  as  well  as 
from  the  Scriptures,  Jefus  came  from  Galilee  to  Jordan  unto 
John,  to  be  immerfed  of  him. 

As  for  change  of  apparel,  it  might  be  with  them,  in 
John's  day,  and  in  the  days  of  the  apoftles,  as  it  has  been 
with  feveral  in  this  place.  When  they  came  from  home 
they  thought  not  of  being  baptized,  but  when  they  gladly 
received  the  word,  love  conftrained  them  to  obey  their  Lord  ; 
and  there  was  no  change  of  garments  in  the  cafe,  fave  they 
threw  afide  lome  of  their  lcofer  garments,  and  having  re- 
ceived the  ordinance,  put  them  on  again. 

II.  "  The  improbability  (fay  you)  that  the  water  which 
was  made  ufe  of  for  baptizing  the  eunuch,  as  it  was  a  water 
to  which  they  happened  to  be  near,  and  was  not  fought  for 
the  purpofe,  fhould  be  in  fufficient  quantity  for  his  immer- 
fion." 

Atif.  Philip  had  told  the  eunuch  what  the  ordinance  of 
baptifm  meant,  or  he  would  not  have  wifhed  that  he  might 
be  the  fubjecl  of  it.  If  he  knew  what  it  meant,  he  would 
probably  know  whether  they  law  a  fufficiency  of  water. 

III.  Ycur  next  collateral  argument  is,  "  The  difficulty 
of  fuppofmg  the  three  thcufand,  mentioned  Acts  ii.  41.  to 
have  been  immerfed  in  that  part  of  one  day  which  followed 
tfceir  ccnverficn,  efpecially  confidering  the  probable  want 


43  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Auftin.      [Let.  VII. 

of  bathing  places,  and  their  not  having  at  command  fuitable 
change  or  apparel." 

-  Anf.  i.  At  Jerufalem  lived  at  this  '.;me  probably  not  lefs 
than  three  hundred  thoufand,  one-third  of  tlieXe  at  leaft  were 
obliged  to  bathe  themfelves  frequently,  on  account  of  fome 
ceremonial  uncleannefs,  and  many  of  the  others  often  ;  hence 
there  was  no  want  of  bathing  places. 

Anf  2.  There  was  no  want  of  qualified  adrniniftrators  ; 
for  their  number  appears  to  have  been  about  an  hundred 
and  twenty  ;  compare  A  efts  i.  J5.  with  ii.  2,  3,  4.  ;  theft 
could  have  baptized  the  whole  in  lefs  than  an  hour, 

Ar.J.  3.  As  to  their  probably  not  having  at  command 
fuitable  change  of  appareL  this  would  be  thought  of  little 
confequence  by  them,  or  by  any  others,  who  i  i  iem- 

nity,  the  importance,  and  the  ipirit  of  the  precious,  ordinance 
of  gcfpel  baptifm.  Hence,  Sir,  here  is  no  difficulty,  but  to 
fiich  as  have  no  heart  to  follow  the  example  of  the  Lamb 
of  God. 

IV.  "  The  form  of  expreffion  (fay  you)  which  Peter 
life's,  A  els  x.  47.  <  Can  any  man  forbid  water,  that  thefe 
mould  not  be  baptized  V  and  the  fuel  of  their  being  baptized 
by  the  command  of  Peter  immediately,  and  as  it  would  fee  111 
oft  the  fpbt.  This  qiieftion  of  Peter,  and  this  fact  in  the 
narrative,  viewed  conjunctly,  have  not  the  appearance  of 
going  to  a  water,  for  the  purpdfe  01  immerfmg  Cornelius, 
his  kinfmen  and  friends  who  were  with  him,  but  of  bap- 
tizing hirn  by  the  application  of  water  produced  in  ioir.e 
veffel." 

Anf.  Sir,  had  we  need  of  any  more  arguments  for  im- 
Xnerfion,  this  account  of  Cornelius  would  manifeftly  come 
to  our  help,  and  the  following  particulars  will  mow  it. 

1.  Cornelius  was  a  Roman  captain  guarding  Judea,  which 
was  at  this  time  one  of  the  provinces  conquered  by  the  Ro- 
mans. 

2.  Cornelius  being  a  Roman  officer  in  a  foreign  country, 
probably  poffelfed  no  land  but  that  on  which  his  houfe  and 
the  barracks  for  his  foldiers  Rood. 

3.  Cornelius  being  a  Roman,  not  a  Jew,  lie  would  proba- 
bly not  furnim  himfelf  with  a  bath  or  bathing  place. 

4.  All  who  know  the  jealoufy  of  the  Jews  as  to  their 
liberties,  and  what  animoiity  they  have  generally  borne  to- 
wards their  conquerors,  may  fee  at  once  they  would  not  be 
very  ready  to  grant  favours  to  a  Gentile  officer,  whofe  office 
aud  prefence  pat  them  in  conftant  remembrance  of  their 
fubje&ion. 


Let.  VII.]      Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aujlin.  49 

5.  The  Jews  probably  owned  all  the  bathing  places  which 
were  for  miles  round,  and  Cornelius  had  no  liberty  to  oc- 
cupy them  without  their  confent. 

Under  thefe  circumitances,  we  may  conclude,  and  very 
rationally  too,  that  Peter  would  addrefs  the  Jews  who  came 
from  Joppa  with  him,  and  others  who  might  poflibly  be 
prefent,  and  fay  to  them,  with  relation  to  his  brethren,  who 
were  owners  of  the  bathing  places  round  about  Cornelius's 
habitation,  Who  of  us  Jews,  who  believe  in  God  and  in  his 
Son  Jefus,  can  be  fo  tenacious  of  our  civil  privileges,  and 
bear  fo  much  ill  will  to  the  Romans,  as  to  forbid  water,  or 
the  ufe  of  fome  bathing  place,  that  thefe  fmners  of  the  Gen- 
tiles, who  have  now  received  the  Holy  Ghoft  as  well  as  we, 
inould  not  be  permitted  to  receive  the  gofpel  ordinance  of 
baptifm  ?  This  appears  «11  eafy  and  natural :  but  to  fup- 
pofe  that  Peter  meant,  Can  any  man  forbid  a  bafon  of 
water  to  be  brought  in,  that  thefe  fhould  not  be  baptized, 
would  be  totally  and  manifestly  unnatural,  and  inconiiftent 
with  the  attending  circumftances.  Peter  was  now  in  Cor- 
nelius's houfe :  Cornelius  had  both  fervants  and  foldiers  at 
a  moment's  command,  and  it  would  perhaps  have  been  the 
laft  thing  that  any  one  of  the  company  would  have  thought 
of,  to  have  forbidden  a  bowl  of  water  to  be  brought  by  one 
of  the  fervants,  at  the  command  of  Cornelius.  You,  Sir, 
and  *the  reader  will  judge  which  fide,  yours  or  the  Baptift's, 
is  favoured  by  this  collateral  argument  of  yours. 

V.  Say  you,  "  The  ftrong  probability,  notwithstanding 
your  fuppofitions,  that  the  jailer  and  his  houfe  were  not 
baptized  by  immerfion." 

For  anfwer,  the  reader  is  referred  to  my  fixth  Sermon, 
pages  93,  94,  firft  edition  ;  however,  I  will  reply  to  a  quef. 
tion  which  you  put  under  this  argument.  "  If  here  was 
immerfion,  (fay  you)  why  do  we  not  hear  fomething  about 
a  river  or  bathing  place,  going  out  to  it,  returning,  &c.  ? 
Anf.  We  do  hear  or  read  in  the  fame  chapter,  and  with 
refpecl:  to  the  fame  city  where  the  jailer  lived,  that  there  was 
a  river  running  through  the  city,  or  by  it.  It  was  by  the 
fide  of  this,  where  Paul  and  Silas  fpake  unto  the  women, 
where  prayer  was  wont  to  be  made.  We  alio  read  of  the 
jailer  and  the  apoftles  coming  in,  of  confequence  they  muii 
have  gone  out. 

VI.  Say  you,  page  65,  "  I  will  jufl  fubjoin,  for  I  confult 
brevity  as  much  as  poiTible,  the  cafe  of  Paul,  Ads  ix.  18,  19. 

«  And  immediately  there  fell  from  his  eyes  as  it  had  been  / 
fcales ;  and  he  received  fight  forthwith,  and  arofe,  and  was. 
baptized." 


So  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Auftin.      [Let.  VII. 

Anf.  Why,  Sir,  did  you  not  mention  Acts  xr.ii.  16.  where 
the  fameTuftory  of  Paul  is  related  in  -he  following  words-** 
'  A  rile,  and  be  baptized,  and  nvajh  aivay  thy  fins,  calling  on 
the  name  of  the  Lord'  ?  The  reaibn  is  fufficiencly  plain  :  in 
this  relation  of  the  fame  transaction,  the  manner  in  which 
water  was  to  be  applied  to  Paul,  in  the  ordinance  of  baptifm, 
was  mentioned  by  implication.  He  was  to  be  bathed  or 
immerfed  in  water,  and  thus,  by  a  figure,  he  was  to  wafll 
away  his  fins,  or  to  have  them  apparently  or  figuratively 
wafhed  away. 

Having  faid  what  you  pleafed,  and  probably  every  thing 
which  you  thought  plaufible,  at  ieafl  the  things  which  you 
judged  moil:  fo,  then  you  obferve,  as  a  kind  of  conclusion, 
thus, — "  I  fuggeft  thefe  things  curforily,  not  pretending  that 
they  furnifh  demonftration,  that  the  uniform  import  of  the 
term  baptize,  as  ufed  in  the  Scriptures,  is  a  partial  warning 
fhort  of  immeriion ;  for  that  is  not  a  point  I  am  aiming  to 
eftablifh,  but  as  furnifhing  direB proof  againft  your  hypothe- 
cs, that  the  word  fignifies  to  immerfe,  and  that  only.  If 
there  are  exceptions,  and  we  fee  that  there  is  abundant  evi- 
dence that  there  are,  your  main  propofition  relative  to  bap- 
tifm falls,  and  with  it  muft  fall,  for  this  reafon,  as  well  as 
for  the  other  previously  given,  your  whole  fuperftructure  of 
clofe  communion. " 

slnf.  I  have,  Sir,  two  objections  againft  this  your  con- 
clufion.  One  is,  You  tell  us  about  dired.  proof  .againft  my 
hypothefis.  When  not  one  paiTage  which  you  have  brought, 
nor  all  of  them  put  together,  where  bnplhza  is  ufed,  furnifh, 
ftrictly  fpeaking,  fo  much  as  one  plaufible  argument  againflt 
my  hypothefis.  When  you  take  the  derivative  of  bapfini 
there  is  fomething  plaufible,  but  it  furnifhes  no  proof,  di 
or  indirect,  againft  it.  The  rriofl:  which  you  can  fay  with 
fafety  is,  that  when  the  tipoftle  fpeaks  of  diaphorgts  baptjfntoist 
divers  waihings,  he  might  mean,  or  you  believe  lie  meant  to. 
include  more  kinds  of  wafhings  than  the  multitude  of  rinf- 
ings,  fcourings  in  water,  and  puttings  into  Water,  &c.  which 
were  enjoined  in  the  ceremonial  law.  You  have  no  proof, 
or  at  leaft  you  have  given  us  none,  that  he  intended  any 
other  kinds  of  wafliings,  which  did  not  imply  immerfion. 
Even  if  you  could  do  what  yui  have  not  done,  produce 
proof  that  bapl'ifmoh  did  include  tome  kinds  of  wafhings 
which  were  not  entire  immuuon,  (till  this  would  be  no 
direct  proof  that.  bapti%5  was  ever  ufed  to  import  any  thing 
ftort  of  entire  immerfion.  Your  proof,  therefore,  fails  you 
utterly;  hence  my  hypothefis  as  yet  (land's  fecurely. 


Let.  VII.]      Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aiifiln.  51 

My  other  objection  is,  You  tell  us  that  there  is  abundance 
of  evidence  that  there  are  exceptions,  i.  e.  that  baptizo  does 
not  always  mean  immerficn,  or  the  like.  We  have  received 
all  your  Letters,  and  find  no  evidence.  You  have  produced 
feveral  pretended  witneifes,  but  they  agree  not  together,  nor 
does  any  one  of  them  fpeak  to  the  point  in  hand  ;  and  even 
when  we  fummed  up  your  own  evidence,  it  was,  that  immer- 
sion was  the  only  gofpel  baptifm  which  you  could  find  ; 
hence  my  main  proportion  (lands,  and  with  it  mujijiand  my 
whole  fuperjlruclure  of  clofe  communion. 

In  page  66,  you  mention  the  appeals  which  have  been 
made  on  both  lides,  to  the  learned  fathers  and  critics  ;  and 
then,  in  page  67,  make  this  excellent  declaration  and  appeal, 
«'  We  refufe,  Sir,  (fay  you)  to  be  bound  by  human  teiti- 
mony,  in  an  eifential  article  of  Chriftian  practice  :  we  appeal 
to  the  oracles  of  truth"  This  is  juft  the  resolution  and  point 
to  which  the  Eaptifts  wifh  to  bring  your  denomination.  If 
you  might  be  inftrumental  of  purfuading  them  to  refufe 
human  teflimony,  as  the  balls  of  any  eflential  article  in  the 
Chriftian  faith,  and  to  take  the  oracles  of  truth,  as  being  a 
iufneient  guide  in  matters  of  faith  and  pract-ce,  and  to  be- 
lieve that  the  man  of  God,  fo  far  as  he  underitands  them,  is 
perfect,  throughly  furnrihed  unto  ail  good  works,  you 
would  do  an  eifential  fervice  to  the  caufe  ci  truth,  and  your 
praii'e  would  be  in  all  the  churches.  Could  this  be  effected, 
we  might  hope  for  a  fpeedy  union  between  the  two  denomi- 
nations. Could  we  all  agree  to  walk  by  one  iule,  we  might 
expect  to  be  foon  in  one  path. 

The  next  thing  which  in  your  Letters  appears  woithy  of 
particular  attention*  is  your  ioienm  addrefs  to  me,  in  page 
*  o,  a  part  of  which  is  in  the  words  following, — k-  I  entreat 
3  ou  to  come  to  a  folemn  paufe,  and  with  your  eye  upon  the 
inert  day,  inquire  whether  you  have  authority  to  ex- 
elude  all  Pidcdobaptiits  from  a  vififcle  ftanding  in  Chriit's 
kingdom,  and  from  the  communion  of  faints  io  an  ordinance 
which  was  given  to  them  as  a  moil  valuable  bequeft  of  their 
Redeemer,  merely  becaufe  they  have  not  been  oaptized  in 
the  manner  of  immerfion  ?" 
My  reply  to  you,  Sir,  is, 

1.  It  was  a  folemn  belief  in  a  judgment  to  come,  and  that 
the  light  of  that  day  would  detect  all  error,  and  difcover  the 
truth,  and  bring  me  to  acknowledge  it,  which  greatly  fub- 
dued  the  riiings  of  my  carnal  heart  again  ft  the  clofe  com- 
munion Bap  lifts.  After  I  had  thought  much  of  the  rar'.ic- 
ular  s  pf^fcbe  Laptiils,  and  had  had  no  finall  diiH- 


5  a  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aufthu     [Let.  VII. 

culty  as  to  my  own  practice,  their  clofe  communion  fcheme, 
as  I  then  considered  it,  appeared  to  me  fo  erroneous,  that  I 
was  upon  the  point  of  concluding  them  to  be  wrong  through- 
out, and  of  fettling  down  upon  my  old  practice ;  but,  Sir,  a 
folemn  belief  in  a  judgment  to  come,  calmed  my  oppofition  ; 
and  a  folemn  belief  that  truth  would  then  appear,  and  that 
if  the  Baptifts  were  in  the  truth,  they  would  then  appear  fo, 
prevailed  upon  me  to  give  their  diftinguifhing  fentiments 
one  folemn  hearing  more.  I  may  fay,  it  was  the  judgment 
day  as  a  mean,  which  made  me  a  Baptiii.  I  have  daily  a 
folemn  view,  or  folemn  thoughts,  on  death,  judgment,  and 
eternity  ;  and  with  reference  to  thefe,  I  fometimes  defire  to 
do  with  my  might  what  my  hands  find  to  do,  for  God 
and  the  church. 

2.  My  reply  is,  that  I  have  no  authority  to  exclude  you 
from  any  place  where  Chrift  hath  put  you,  nor  from  any 
ordinance  which  he  hath  bequeathed  to  you  :  but  I  have  no 
belief  of  fprinkling,  nor  of  any  thing  elfe  fliort  of  immerfion, 
being  gofpel  baptifm.  I  have  no  belief  of  a  perfon's  be- 
longing to  ChriiVs  viGble  kingdom,  before  he  is  baptized. 
I  have  no  belief  of  Chrift's  having  bequeathed  the  ordinance 
of  the  fupper  to  any,  till  they  belong  to  his  vifible  kingdom  ; 
confequently,  I  have  no  belief  of  your  having  any  gofpel 
right  to  partake  of  that  ordinance  ;  hence,  my  fettled  belief 
is,  that  I  have  no  liberty  to  encourage  you  to  come,  till  you 
repent  of  your  perverfion  of  the  firft  gofpel  ordinance,  and  be 
baptized. 

Say  you  again,  confider,  "  I  befeech  you,  how  your  doc- 
trine belittles  the  glorious  and  growing  kingdom  of  the 
Meffiah,  &c.  ;  how  it  obliges  you  to  go  abreaft  of  the  moll 
affecting  facts,  I  mean  the  wonderful  fuccefs  which  has  at- 
tended the  labours  of  thoufands  of  Pasdobaptift  minifters  " 

But,  my  dear  Sir,  you  have  forgotten  the  appeal  which 
you  have  but  juft  made  to  the  oracles  of  truth.  On  the  laft 
page  this  appeal  was  made,  and  now  you  are  appealing  to 
good  Paedobaptift  minifters,  to  cfonvict  me  of  an  error.  I 
fhall  no  more  confent  to  fuch  an  appeal.  To  the  oracles  of 
truth  thou  baft  appealed,  and  to  them  thou  muft  go,  and  by 
them  thou  and  thy  works  muft  be  judged.  By  them  con- 
vict either  me  or  my  doctrines,  and  I  am  filent.  But  at  no 
other  tribunal  do  I  for  the  prefent  confent  to  meet  you,  or 
to  be  tried  myfelf. 

Wiihing  that  we  may  both  of  u#  be  prepared  to  meet  the 
God  of  truth,  in  Him  who  is  the  truth, 

I  am,  &c. 


Let.  VIII.]       Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aufiin.  $\ 


LETTER   VIII. 

REVEREND    SIR, 

I  NOW  haften  to  a  review  of  your  examination  of  my 
Sermon  on  the  fubjects  of  baptifm. 

In  page  72,  you  complain  of  my  ftatement  of  the  ques- 
tion, which  relates  to  the  command  to  difciple  all  nations. 
I  ftated  it  thus :  The  important  queftion  to  be  decided  is 
juft  this — If  I  difciple  any  of  you  vuho  are  parents •,  do  I,  as  a 
necejfary  confequence,  difciple  all  your  children  and  houfeholds  ? 

You  object — "  No,  Sir,  this  is  not  juft  the  queftion  ;  the 
queftion  refpects  the  object  of  this  act  of  difcipling.  Whom 
are  you  to  difciple  ?  the  text  fays,  All  nations."  Very  well ; 
and  do  not  nations  confift  of  parents,  with  their  children  and 
houfeholds  ?  In  the  next  page  you  fay,  "  The  capability  of 
the  objects  muft  certainly  be  fuppofed ;  but  there  can  be  no 
capability  in  the  infant  part  of  a  nation,  but  by  virtue  of 
their  relation  to  their  parents."  Very  well  again  ;  this  comes 
to  juft  what  I  laid — If  your  fcheme  be  juft,  we  difciple  the 
children  by  diicipling  the  parents. 

Before  we  proceed  any  further,  we  will  give  our  Saviour's 
definition  of  a  difciple,  Luke  xiv.  33.  'Whofoever  he  be  of 
you  that  forfaketh  not  all  that  he  hath,  he  cannot  be  my 
difciple.'  Now,  Sir,  the  important  queftion  is  juft  this — . 
If  through  my  inftrumentality  a  parent  forfakes  all  that  he 
hath,  and  fo  becomes  a  difciple,  do  the  infant  children  and 
houfehold  become  difciples  of  courfe  ?  This  is  your  fcheme, 
Sir,  but  it  is  not  mine  nor  the  gofpePs. 

In  connexion,  you  afk,  "Is  it  impoftible  for  God  to  per- 
fect praife  from  the  mouth  of  babes  and  fucklings,  and  that 
of  fuch,  in  part,  his  kingdom  of  grace  mould  confift  ?"  From 
what  motive  you  afked  this  queftion,  which,  from  its  con- 
nexion, tends  to  deceive  the  inattentive,  I  know  not,  but  to 
it  I  reply — You  have  changed  the  fubject  in  debate  ;  we 
are  not  fpeaking  of  the  kingdom  of  grace,  but  of  Chrift's 
vifible  kingdom  :  befides,  the  babes  and  fucklings  which  are 
fpoken  of  in  the  gofpel,  and  of  which  Chrift's  vifible  king- 
dom does  no  doubt  in  part  confift,  are  fuch  as  cried  in  the 
temple,  faying,  Hofanna  to  the  Son  of  David. 

You  complain  again,  becaufe  I  fubftituted  difciple  for  teac/j, 
and  fo  make  the  command  of  our  Lord  to  be,  Go  and  dis- 
ciple all  nations  ;  yet  in  the  next  page  you  fay,  "  The  fub- 
ftitution  of  the  term  difciple,  is  much  more  favourable  to 

F 


54  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Auftin.      [Let.  VIII. 

the  caufe  of  the  Paedobaptifts  than  to  yours."  Why  fo? 
Becaufe,  as  you  implicitly  tell  us  in  the  preceding  fentence, 
and  imply  in  this,  that  children  cannot  be  taught  by  virtue 
of  their  relation  to  their  parents,  but  that  they  may  be  dif- 
cipled  by  virtue  of  this  relation.  But,  Sir,  you  quite  forget 
your  appeal  to  the  oracles  of  truth,  or  determine  not  to  abide 
their  decifion,  or  you  could  never  fuppofe  that  an  infant,  or 
that  a  child  of  any  age,  could,  by  virtue  of  his  relation  to 
his  parents,  forfake  all  that  he  hath,  and  fo  become  a  difct- 
ple  of  Chrift.  "But  (in  the  clofe  you  fay)  allow,  in  this 
refpect  alfo,  all  that  you  wifh,  that  the  command  extends  to 
adults  only,  what  will  follow  ?  Will  it  follow  that  this  paf- 
fage  interdicts  infant  baptifm  ?  By  no  means,"  fay  you.  I 
anfwer,  By  all  means,  it  does  interdict  all  others ;  for  the 
text,  Mat.  xxviii.  19.  is  the  general  orders,  and  it  is  the 
particular  orders,  which  Jefus  Chrift  halh  given,  relative  to 
the  fubjects  of  baptifm,  and  he  hath  given  us  no  different 
orders.  When  he  hath  pointed  out,  and  particularly  defig- 
nated,  who  are  to  be  admitted  to  his  ordinance  of  baptifm, 
he  interdicts  all  others,  and  none  elfe  have  a  right  to  come  ; 
nor  have  his  minifters  any  authority  to  baptize  any  others ; 
and  it  is  grofs  prefumption,  if  they  knowingly  adminifter  to 
perfons  of  a  different  defcription. 

You  next  examine  three  fhcrt  arguments  of  mine,  againft 
infant  baptifm. 

1.  John  made  his  hearers  difciples,  before  he  baptized 
them. 

2.  Chrift's  difciples  baptized  none,  but  fuch  as  were  made 
difciples  firft,  according  to  John  iv.  1,  2. 

3.  Chrift,  in  my  text,  gives  no  liberty  to  baptize  any,  but 
fuch  as  are  firft  difcipled. 

You  allent  to  each  of  thefe  arguments,  as  being  well 
founded;  nay,  if  poffible,  you  do  more  :  you  inform  us  that 
the  cafe  of  infant  baptifm  was  not  mentioned  by  John,  by 
Jefus  Chrift,  or.  by  his  difciples.  Your  words  are,  «*  Ther* 
was  good  reafon  why,  when  baptifm  was  introduced,  as 
adminiftered  to  the  Jews,  the  cafe  of  infants  was  not  men- 
tioned :  it  is  doubtful  whether  they  were  baptized  ;  I  am 
inclined  to  think  they  were  not."  Now,  Sir,  if  there  were 
good  reafon  why,  when  baptifm  was  introduced,  as  ad- 
miniftered to  the  Jews,  the  cafe  of  infants  was  not  men- 
tioned, then  it  was  not  ;  if  it  were  not  mentioned  then, 
among  the  Jew?,  it  was  not  mentioned  at  all  by  Jefus 
Chrift,  for  he  was  no  where  elie.  If  it  were  not  mentioned 
b-v  Chrift,  it  Is  r.ot  in  the  gofpel  of  Jefus  Chrift;  for  nor.e! 


Let.  IX.]       Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aujiin.  55 

had  authority  to  add  any  thing  but  what  he  had  command- 
ed. This  being  the  cafe,  furely  you  have  not  expreue$l 
yourfelf  too  ftrongly,  where  you  fay,  "  It  is  doubtful  whether 
they  (infants)  were  baptized  ;  I  am  inclined  to  think  they 
were  not.'*  But  if  this  be  the  truth,  that  neither  John,  nor 
Jefus  Chrift,  the  Chriftian  Lawgiver,  nor  his  difciples,  fo 
much  as  mentioned  infant  baptifm,  I  wifii  to  know  by  what 
authority  you  and  your  brethren  practife  it  ?  and  who  gave 
you  this  authority  ?  From  Chrift  you  received  it  not ;  for 
you  confefs  that  he  mentioned  it  not  in  his  days,  or  you  fay, 
*•  there  was  good  reafon  why  the  cafe  of  infants  was  not  then 
mentioned."  You  alfo  confefs,  his  difciples  did  not  mention 
rt  in  the  days  of  Chrift,  nor  for  I  know  not  how  long  after- 
wards. The  apoftles  have,  indeed,  no  where  faid  a  word  of 
infant  baptifm.  By  what  authority  then  do  you  teach  in- 
fant baptifm,  and  prefume  to  practice  it  ?  and  who  gave  you 
this  authority  ?  Have  you  any  authority,  fave  from  the  popes 
of  Rome,  from  the  mother  of  harlots,  the  my  fiery  of  iniqui- 
ty, comprifing  the  kings  of  the  earth,,  who  are  at  war  with 
the  Lamb  ? 

Wifhihg  you  wifdom  and  grace  enough  to  renounce  the 
traditions  of  popes  and  councils,  and.  to  practise  by  gofpel 
rules, 

I  am,  &c. 


LETTER  IX, 


REVEREND    SIR, 

YOUR  Letter  upon  the  covenant  of  circumcifion,  de- 
mands our  next  attention.  You  manifeft  a  very  ftrong 
attachment  to  this  covenant :  you  confider  it  to  be  the  in- 
furmountable  obftacle  in  our  way,  and  the  hinge  on  which 
hangs  the  controverfy  between  us ;  yes,  you  fet  it  down  to 
be  the  rock  on  which  are  all  our  hopes.  You  tell  us,  "  if 
we  do  not  keep  it,  we  are  inevitably  lojr  forever." 

It  might  be  thought  by  fome  to  be  a  fufficient  anfwer,  t« 
afk,  What  then  hath  become  of  Enoch,  Methufelah,  Noah, 
and  many  others,  who  lived  and  died  long  before  the  cove- 
nant of  circumcifion  had  exiftence  ?  But,  Sir,  as  your  mind 
is  highly  intent  on  this  covenant,  and  as  I  indeed  confider  it 
an  important  article,  I  will  fet  it  before  you  with  as  muck 
perfpicuity  as  I  can. 


$6  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aufiin.       [Let.  IX. 

To  clear  the  way  to  introduce  the  covenant  of  circum- 
cifion, I  will  juft  mention  the  covenant  which  includes  the 
promifes  which  were  made  to  Abraham  and  to  his  feed ; 
*  not  to  feeds,  as  of  many,  but  as  of  one,  And  to  thy  feed, 
which  is  Chrift,'  Gal.  iii.  16.  This  covenant  was  before 
time  ;  but  it  was  confirmed  of  God  in  Chrift,  (to  Abraham) 
twenty  years  before  the  covenant  of  circumciiion  was  made 
or  mentioned,  verfe  17.  This  covenant,  which  included  the 
promifes  of  grace,  was  mentioned  or  intimated,  Gen.  xii.  3. 
The  fame  covenant,  or  fome  of  the  promifes  contained  in  it, 
or  flowing  from  it,  are  again  mentioned,  Gen.  xii.'  7.  xv.  8. 
and  xvii.  1 — 8.  and  in  many  other  places.  With  regard  to 
this  covenant,  there  is  no  profefted  difficulty  between  your 
denomination  and  the  Baptifts,  fave  in  one  point,  whether 
this  covenant  and  that  of  circumcifion  be  the  fame. 

You  believe  this  covenant  contains  all  the  promifes  of 
grace,  and  that  this  covenant  and  that  of  circumcifion  are 
one  and  the  fame  covenant. 

We  believe  this  covenant  contains  Chrift,  and  as  all  the 
promifes  of  grace  are  in  Chrift,  ib  all  the  promifes  are  con- 
tained in  this  covenant ;  and  that  the  covenant  of  circum- 
cifion is  a  covenant  diftincl  from  this,  and  is  but  a  token  of 
this.  We  believe  the  firft  covenant,  which,  for  the  fake  of 
diftinclion,  is  called  the  covenant  of  grace,  comprifes  this 
covenant  of  circumcifion,  fo  far  as  circumcifion  was  of 
grace ;  but  we  do  not  believe  that  the  covenant  of  grace 
was  the  covenant  of  circumcifion  ;  we  believe  the  latter 
covenant  to  be  a  token  of  the  former,  and  yet  fo  diftincl  from 
it  as  to  be  two  diftincl  covenants.  Our  inquiry  fhall  be, 
Do  not  the  Scriptures  fay  the  fame  things  ? 

Before  I  make  the  propofed  inquiry  I  have  a  few  things 
to  obferve. 

1.  The  covenant  of  grace  is  what  God  agrees,  if  I  may 
fo  fay,  or  covenants,  or  promifes  to  do  for  Abraham,  his 
pofterity,  and  for  the  family  of  mankind  ;  or  that  which 
God  hath  promifed  to  do  for  the  human  family,  is  the  vifi- 
ble  part  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  as  it  refpecls  the  good  of 
man. 

2.  The  covenant  of  circumcifion  is  what  God  required 
Abraham  to  agree  to  and  to  praclife. 

3.  The  firft  covenant  was  repeatedly  mentioned,  and  was 
confirmed  by  the  promife  of  God,  before  the  fecond  was 
once  brought  to  view. 

4.  The  covenant  of  circumcifion  appears  to  be  no  more 
the  covenant  of  grace,  in  which  are  the  promifes,  than'  my 


Let.  IX.]       Letters  to  F.ev.  Mr.  Auftin.  57 

believing  in  a;d  approving  of  the  mediatorial  righteoufnefs 
of  Jefus  Chrift,  is  that  all-fufficient  righteoufnefs.  God  re- 
quired Abraham  and  his  natural  feed  to  obferve  the  cove- 
nant of  circumcifion ;  he  requires  me  and  all  others  to  believe. 
The  foul  who  was  not  circumcifed,  had  broken  the  covenant ; 
fc  the  unbeliever  is  condemned  already,  Gen.  xvii.  14.  John 
lit.  18. 

5.  By  confounding  thefe  two  covenants  together,  you 
confound  ycinfelf,  and  confufe  your  readers  and  hearers, 
and  obtain  fome  unreafonable  plaufibility  in  favour  of  your 
unfcriptural  notions  of  baptizing  children. 

6.  If  thefe  covenants  were  one,  flill  they  neither  of  them 
Tay  a  word  about  the  baptifm  of  children,  or  of  Chriftian 
baptifm  for  any  perfon  ;  nor  are  they  ever  mentioned  by 
Chrift,  by  his  difciplos,  or  by  any  others,  as  giving  any  right 
to  baptifm,  unlefs  it  were  by  the  Pharifees  and  Sadducees 
w^o  came  to  John's  baptifm. 

7.  The  covenant  of  circumcifion  is  but  a  toVen  of  the 
covenant  between  God  and  Abraham  ;  or  a  token  of  God's 
promifes  being  to  Abraham  for  good,  and  a  feal  of  Abra* 
ham's  faithfulnefs. 

Now  our  inquiry  mall  be — Say  not  the  Scriptures  the  fame 
things  ? 

In  the  firff  place,  the  Scriptures  tell  us,  that  God  prom- 
ifed  to  Abraham,  that  in  his  feed  all  the  families  of  the  earth 
fhould  be  blerTed,  Gen.  xii.  3.  The  Scriptures  alfo  a/fure 
us,  that  God  prcmifed  to  Abraham,  that  his  feed  fliouid 
inherit  the  land  cf  Canaan,  and  that  God  would  make  him 
the  father  of  many  nations,  Gen.  xii.  7.  xv.  18-  xvii.  1 — 8. 
Thefe  are  promifes  contained  in  the  covenant  of  grace,  or 
thefe  are  the  covenant  cf  grace,  as  manifested  to  Abraham ; 
or  they  are  promifes  founded  upon,  or  flowing  from,  that 
covenant. 

In  the  next  place,  the  Scriptures  fay,  Gen.  xvii.  10,  11. 
*  T,\:s  is  my  covenant  'which  ye  JJjall  keep  between  me  and  youy  and 
thy  feed  after  thee  ;  Every  man-child  among  you  Jhall  be  circum- 
cifed. Aiid  ye  JJoall  circumcife  the  jlejh  of  your  for  ejkin  ;  and  it 
Jhall  be  a  token  of  the  covenant  betwixt  me  and  you.'  Heuce,  if 
you  can  underftand  two  plain  verfes  in  the  Bible,  you  may 
underftand  what  the  covenant  of  circumcifion  is.  In  thefe 
two  verfes  we  have  the  fame  thing  mentioned  four  times,  in 
different  words :  firft,  God  fays,  This  is  my  covenant ;  feq> 
ondly,  he  tells  what  it  is,  Every  man-child  among  you  (hall 
be  circumcifed ;  thirdly,  God  informs  us  how  this  covenant  is 
F  2 


58  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Auftln.       [Let.  IX. 

to  be  kept,  Ye  (hall  circumcife  the  flefh  of  your  forefkin  5 
fourthly,  God  informs  us  what  is  the  end  or  ufe  of  this  cov- 
enant of  circumcition,  It  ihall  be  a  token  of  the  covenant 
betwixt  Him  and  Abraham. 

Here  the  covenant  of  circumcifion  equals  every  man-child 
being  circumcifed ;  every  man-child  being  circumcifed  equals 
the  circumcjfmg  the  flefh  of  their  forefkin  ;  the  circumcifing 
the  flefh  of  their  forefkin  equals  the  token  of  the  covenant 
betwixt  God  and  Abraham ;  hence,  the  token  of  the  cove- 
nant betwixt  God  and  Abraham  equals  the  covenant  of 
circumcifion ;  for  it  is  a  well  known  axiom,  That  things 
that  are  equal  to  the  fame  are  equal  to  one  another :  hence, 
Sir,  you  rnuft  fay,  that  a  token  of  a  covenant  is  the  covenant 
itfelf,  which  is  abfurd,  or  that  the  covenant  of  circumcifion  is 
a  covenant  in  diftinction  from  the  covenant  of  grace,  or  in 
diftinction  from  that  covenant  which  contains  the  promifes. 

Befides,  if  you  will  ftill  hold  that  the  covenant  of  circum- 
cifion and  that  of  grace  are  the  fame  thing,  you  foil  into 
another  abfurdity,  which  ought  to  alarm  you,  and  it  will 
confound  your  fentiment.  The  abfurdity  is  this, — If  the 
covenant  of  grace,  which  contains  the  promife  of  the  Mei- 
fiah,  and  the  covenant  of  circumcifion,  be  one  and  the  fame 
thing,  then  the  covenant  of  grace,  which  contains  the  prom- 
ife of  the  Meffiah,  may  be  broken,  and  hath  been  thoufands 
of  times  ;  for  the  covenant  of  circumcifion  was  broken  every 
time  and  as  often  as  any  male  child  among  the  Jews  was 
not  circumcifed,  Gen.  xvii.  14.  Thus  abfurd  are  your  no- 
tions of  the  covenant  of  circumcifion  ;  and  by  thefe  abfurd 
notions,  you  would  lead  men  blindfold  into  the  antichriftian 
notion  of  infant  baptifm :  for,  fay  as  much  as  you  pleafe, 
there  is  not  one  of  your  hearers  or  readers,  who  can  fee  that 
infant  baptifm,  as  a  gofpel  duty,  is  found  in  the  Jewifh  rite 
of  circumcifion.  By  fuch  dark  notions  you  may  lead  the 
blind  blindfold,  but  you  can  never  in  this  way  inftruct  the 
ignorant,  or  reclaim  thofe  who  wander  out  of  the  way. 
Chrift  hath  no  where  taught  you  to  teach  thus,  „and  you 
ought  to  be  careful  how  you  thus  teach  for  the  future. 

You  probably  may  fuppofe  that  you  have  an  objection  of 
fome  magnitude,  againft  my  idea  of  the  covenant  of  circum- 
cifion, becaufe  it  is  faid,  Gen.  xvii.  13.  *  My  covenant  ihall 
be  in  your  Jlijh  for  an  everlafling  covenant*  Anf.  This  ever- 
lafting  covenant  of  circumcifion  was  to  be  of  the  fame  dura- 
tion with  the  everlafling  pojfejfion  which  the  Lord  promifed  to 
give  the  feed  of  Abraham,  in  the  land  of  Canaan,  verfe  8  : 
neither  of  them  was  intended  to  continue  without  end. 


Let.  IX.]       Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aujlin.        ■     $g 

Your  denomination  are  often,  if  not  continually,  telling 
the  world  about  circumcifion  being  a  feal  of  the  covenant. 
You  would  much  oblige  us,  would  you  inform  us  by  what 
authority  you  employ  this  blind  to  prevent  the  ignorant  from 
feeing. 

We  read,  Rom.  iv.  1 1.  of  circumcifion  being  a  feal  cf  the 
righteoufnefs  of  Ab rah an? 's  faith,  but  this  gives  you  no  author- 
ity to  impofe  upon  your  hearers  the  falfe  and  miichievous 
idea  of  its  being  a  feal  of  the  covenant,  and  fo  they  muft 
have  their  children  fprinkled,  to  put  them  into  the  covenant. 
A  more  wicked  idea  the  man  of  Jn  probably  never  advanced 
to  a  credulous  world. 

By  this  time  you  may  conclude  that  either  you  or  I  know 
nothing  about  the  covenant  of  circumciiion.  That  the 
readers  may  judge  for  themfeives,  and  know  where  the 
truth  lies,  I  will  fet  down,  in  the  margin,  the  texts  which 
ipeak  of  circumcifion,  from  Genefis  to  Revelation.* 

You  fay,  page  84,  fpeaking  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  "  If 
circumciiion  was  a  feal  of  this  covenant,  which  preceded 
Chri ft,  and  is  abolifned,  beyond  ail  queftion  baptifm  is  or- 
dained in  its  fxead.  I  fhould  admit  this,  if  1  were  a  Bap- 
tift."  Admit  what,  Sir,  if  you  were  a  Baptiit  ?  "  If  cir- 
cumciiion was>  a  feal  of  this  covenant."  Yes,  Sir,  if  cir- 
cumcifion were  a  feal  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  and  all  who 
were  circumcifed  were  fealed  in  this  covenant  of  grace,  we 
would  admit  juft  what  you  might  pleafe  to  prefcribe.  But, 
Sir,  the  whole  of  this  bufmefs  of  circumciiion  being  a  leal, 
as  multitudes  are  in  our  day  made  to  believe,  is  a  mere 
farce,  or  religious  impoiition. 

I  now  leave  the  covenant  of  circumcifion  to  your  future 
confideration,  and  come  to  review  a  few  of  your  words 
which  relate  to  Lydia.  Speaking  of  what  I  obferved  of 
Lydia  and  her  houfehold,  after  mentioning  feveral  things 
which  I  fuggefted,  and  leaving  out  the  little  evidence  which 
I  fet  down,  namely,  *  That  Paul  entered  into  the  houfe  of 
Lydia,  and  there  comforted  the  brethren/  you  fay,  "  Thefe 
fuppofitions,  Sir,  may  be  founded  in  truth,  but  who  knows 
that  they  are  ;  who,  that  can  juftly  make  any  pretenfions  to 
impartiality,  can  believe  them  without  evidence  ?"     Your 

*  Gen.  xvii.  to — 74,  23 — 27.  xxxiv.  15,  17, 22,  24.  Exod.  iv.  26. 
Deut.  x.  16.  xxx.  6.  Jofh.  v.  2,  3,  4,  5,  7,  8.  Jere.  iv.  4.  ix.  25,  26. 
Luke  ii.  21.  John  vii.  22,  23.  A<5b  vii.  8.  x.  45.  xi.  2,  3.  xv.  1,  5. 
xvi.  3  xxi.  21.  Rom.  ii.  25,  26,  28,29.  iii.  I,  30.  iv.  9 — 12.  xv.  8. 
1  Cor.  vii.  18,  19.  Gal.  ii.  3,  7,  8,  9.  v.  2,  6,  11,  12, 13,  15.  Eph. 
ii.  11.    Fhil.  iii.  3,  5.     Col,  ii.  11.    iii.  11.    iv.  II. 


6o  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aujlin.       [Let.  IX. 

conclufion  is,  "  Upon  the  whole,  as  fuppofitions  are  mifera- 
ble  arguments,  the  evidence  is  left  juft  where  you  found 
it." 

Were  I,  Sir,  to  join  with  yon  in  fentiment,  and  were  your 
readers  to  be  of  the  fame  opinion,  that  fuppofitions  are  mifer- 
able  arguments,  we  might  all  of  us  have  one  idea  fuggefted 
to  our  minds  at  the  fame  moment,  whether  your  arguments 
be  not  all  of  them  of  that  defcription.  But,  efpecially  if 
fuppofitions  be  miferable  arguments,  why  do  you  and  your 
denomination  reft  the  important  points  of  baptifm  and  its 
ftibjects  on  juft  fuch  miferable  arguments  f  For,  make  the 
beft  of  the  arguments  for  infaint  fprinkling,  or  even  for  in- 
fant baptifm,  they  are  but  fuppofitions,  and  but  poor  im- 
probable ones  too  ;  yet,  in  the  face  of  your  brethren,  you 
fay,  fuppofitions  are  miferable  arguments.  Such  an  alfertion,  if 
true,  is  enough  to  ruin  the  praelice  of  infant  fprinkling,  or 
at  leaft  the  credit  of  fuch  a  practice. 

You  fuppofe  that  bapt'1%0  is  fometimes  ufed  for  fprinklin** 
©r  partial  wailiing,  but  you  produce  no  evidence,  unlefs  it 
be  fuppofititious  evidence,  that  it  is  ever  once  £0  ufed  in  any 
part  of  the  Bible,. 

You  fuppofe  that  baptizo  is  fometimes  ufed  as  equivalent 
wkh  nipto,  but  you  find  no  place  where  it  is  thus  ufed,  or 
have  no  evidence  that  it  is  thus,  unlefs  it  be  fuppofed  1  »!- 
dence,  which  comes  only  to  fuppofition. 

You  fuppofe  that  baptifmois  is  ufed  for  the  application  of 
fluids  in  every  way,  but  ftill  you  want  evidence. 

You  fuppofe  that  Chrift's  bleffing  little  children  is  an  ar- 
gument in  favour  of  infant  baptifm. 

You  fuppofe  that  what  Peter  laid  about  the  promife  of 
the  Spirit,  as  being  to  parents  and  children,  even  to  as  many 
as  the  Lord  our  God  fhall  call,  is  for  infant  baptifm. 

You  fuppofe  that  the  baptifm  of  Lydia's  houfehold,  of 
the  jailer's  houfehold,  and  of  Stephanas's,  are  all  in  favour 
of  infant  baptifm. 

You  fuppofe  that  many  other  things  are  alfo  in  its  favour-; 
but  it  is  all  but  bare  fuppofition,  for  not  a  fy liable  is  men- 
tioned of  infant  baptifm  from  Genefis  to  Revelation.  Now, 
is  it  not  furprifmg  that  you  mould  tell  the  world,  (not  your 
opponents  only,  but  your  friends  too)  that  fuppofitions  are 
miferable  arguments  ?  In  fact,  Sir,  if  this  be  admitted,  and 
fhould  it  be  generally  received,  that  fuppofitions  are  mifera- 
ble arguments,  your  examination  of  my  Sermons  will  lofe  its 
influence,  and  fo  will  your  whole  caufe  of  fprinkling  and 
infant  baptifm. 


Let.  IX.]       Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aujlin.  6 1 

The  next  thing  to  be  noticed,  is  your  reply  to  the  follow- 
ing proportion.  I  obferved,  c  Abraham's  children  after  the 
fleih  were  not  included  in  the  promife,  as  Paedobaptifts  of 
our  day  would  have  theirs.'  You  reply,  as  though  you 
did  not  understand  me — "  If  you  mean  (fay  you)  that  they 
were  not  all  participants  in  the  bleffings  of  the  promife,  it  is 
admitted. "  If  you,  Sir,  did  not  underftand  me  before,  I 
will  endeavour  that  you  may  now.  What  I  mean  is  this — 
« They  which  are  the  children  of  the  flefh,  thefe  are  not  the 
children  of  God,  but  the  children  of  the  promife  are  counted 
for  the  feed  ;  for  this  is  the  word  of  promife,  At  this  time 
will  I  come,  and  Sara  mail  have  a  fon,'  Rom.  ix.  8,  9. 
Not,  Hagar  fhall  have  a  fon  ;  not,  Keturah  fnail  have  fix 
fons.  Abraham  had  eight  fons,  but  Ifaac  was  the  only  one 
of  the  eight  to  whom  Was  the  promife.  Nov/,  you  fay  this 
promife,  which  was  to  Abraham  and  his  feed,  is  to  you  and 
to  all  your  children :  hence  you,  having  eight  fons,  claim 
the  promife  to  each  of  the  eight,  when  Abraham  could  claim 
it  but  for  one  of  his.  Do  you  and  your  brethren  fuppofe, 
that  you  have  each  one  of  you  eight  parts  in  the  promife, 
and  Abraham  but  one  ?  It  is  no  wonder,  Sir,  that  you  could 
not  underftand  me.  I  defire  that  you  might,  for  the  future, 
have  a  good  understanding,  when  you  fpeak  of  the  promife, 
as  being  to  you  and  to  jour  children,  and  of  putting  them 
into  the  covenant,  or  putting  the  fed  of  the  covenant  upon 
them. 

In  pages  88,  89,  you  have  the  remarkable  paffage  which 
follows  :  "  In  pages  96,  97,  and  98,  (i.  e.  of  my  Sermons) 
you  run  (fay  you)  the  doclrine  of  psedobaptifm  into  what 
you  call  legitimate  confequeuces :  they  are  eight  in  number, 
and  they  are  frightful  things  indeed.  If  you  have  fuppofed 
pardobaptifm  embai  raffed  with  all  thefe  confequences,  I  am 
perfectly  aftoniihed  how  you  could  find  a  confeience  to  prac- 
tife  it,  as  you  have  done." 

Reply,  Is  it  not,  Sir,  more  aftonlfhing  that  you  can  prac- 
tife  it,  after  thefe  confequences  are  laid  before  you  ?  But  you 
find  a  very  eafy  way  to  get  rid,  as  you  fuppofe,  of  the  whole 
difficulty :  the  way  you  take  is  this — fay  you,  "  All  thefe 
confequences,  Sir,  will  be  denied  by  every  intelligent  aehocate 
for  infant  baptifm."  How  intelligent,  I  will  not  prefume 
to  fay,  a  perfon  muft  be,  to  hold  a  premife  and  deny  all  the 
legitimate  confequences.  Should  you,  or  any  of  your  de- 
nomination, hereafter  undertake  to  deny  the  confequences 
which  I  drew,  you  are  defired  to  ftate  the  principle,  and 
then  mow  the  difagreement  between  that  and  my  confe- 


&i  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Auftin.       [Let,  IX. 

quences.  The  principle  of  the  Paedobapttfts  is  this — "  The 
fubjecls  of  baptifm  are  to  be  determined  by  the  fubjects  of 
circumcifion."  The  firft  account  which  we  have  of  the 
iubjeas  of  circumcifion,  and  perhaps  as  particular  account 
as  any  which  is  given  us,  is  in  the  family  of  Abraham. 
Abraham  was  a  great  and  good  man,  and  on  his  account 
all  the  males  in  his  houfe  were  to  be  circumcifed,  whether 
they  were  young  or  old,  his  own  children,  or  bought  with 
money,  or  born  in  his  houfe.  Before  he  was  commanded 
to  circumcife  his  houfehold,  he  had  three  hundred  and  eigh- 
teen training  foldiers,  born  in  his  own  houfe :  how  many 
more  were  born  in  his  houfe,  or  bought  with  his  money, 
before  the  day  of  their  circumcifion,  we  know  not ;  but  let 
it  be  more  or  lefs,  one  thing  is  certain,  they  were  all  to  be 
Circumcifed,  on  account  of  Abraham's  being  a  good  man, 
full  of  faith. 

Now,  Sir,  your  principle,  or  the  principle  of  your  de- 
nomination, is,  that  the  fubjects  of  baptifm  are  to  be  deter- 
mined by  the  fubjects  of  circumcifion. 

Hence,  my  firfl  confequence  was — Every  man  who  is 
converted  to  the  Chriftian  religion  is-  to  be  baptized,  and  all 
his  houfehold,  though  he  may  have  three  hundred  and 
eighteen  training  foldiers  born  in  his  own  houfe.  Not  only 
are  thefe  foldiers,  but  their  wives  and  children,  and  all  other 
fervants  who  belong  to  this  great  man's  home.  A  thoufand 
infidels  are  to  be  baptized,  becaufe  one  great  man,  their 
iziafter,  is  chrUlianized. 

My  fie  and  confequence  was — Thefe  foldiers,  with  their 
wives,  children,  and  fervants,  are  all  to  be  confidered  and 
treated  as  church  members,  or  as  being  in  covenant :.  in  the 
covenant  of  circumcifion,  or  fome  fimilar. 

Thus  were  the  circumcifed  confidered  and  treated.  I£ 
baptifm  have  taken  the  place  of  circumcifion,  and  the  fub- 
jecls  of  the  one  are  to  be  determined  by  the  other,  then  mult 
thefe  foldiers,  wives,  and  children  be  confidered  and  treated' 
in  the  fame  manner. 

The  other  confequences  the  reader  will  find  in  my  fixth 
Sermon,  and  confult  them  at  his  leifure. 

Now,  Sir,  how  you  could,  without  mentioning  either  prin- 
ciple or  confequence,  tell  the  world,  both  learned  and  un- 
learned, "  that  all  thefe  confequences  will  be  denied  by 
every  Intelligent  advocate  for  infant  baptifm,"  is  a  little  to  be 
wondered  at.  I  have  hardly  intelligence  enough  to  under- 
ftand  what  you  intend  by  an  intelligent  advocate  for  infant 
baptifm.     By  what  you  have  {aid,  I  fbould  naturally  enougk 


Let,  IX.]       Letters  to  Rev,  Mt\  Aujttn.  6$ 

conclude,  that  by  an  intelligent  advocate  for  infant  baptifm, 
you  intend  one  who  knows  how  to  advocate  principles  and 
<feny  the  natural  confequences,and  deduce  others  to  his  liking. 

You  fay,  *■  That  my  confequences  are  frightful  things." 
I  drew  them  that  you  might  attend  to  them,  and  be  frightened 
or  driven  from  your  antichriftian  principle  :  but  you  flill 
hold  the  principle,  at  lead  in  meafure,  and  fecure  or  content 
yourfelf  under  the  idea,  that  every  intelligent  advocate  for 
infant  baptifm  will  deny  my  confequences.  How  you  will 
anfwer  it  to  the  Britifn  church,  to  the  popes  of  Rome,  and 
to  a  multitude  of  other  learned  Paedobaptifts,  who  have 
practtfed  upon  a  number  of  my  conclufions,  and  admitted 
the  reft  as  true,  fave  the  fifth  and  laft,  for  placing  them 
among  the  unintelligents,  is  left  for  you  to  determine. 

The  laft  cbrtfequehce  which  I  drew  from  this  Psedobaptift 
principle,  That  the  fubje&s  of  baptifm  are  to  be  determined 
by  the  fubjects  of  circumcifion,  is — It  doth,  fo  far  as  it  hath 
its  perfect  work,  deftroy  the  very  idea  of  the  gofpel  church, 
contradict  the  prophets,  and  make  Paul  and  others  fpeak 
not  the  truth  ;  and  it  throws  us  back  to  the  ftate  of  the 
Jewifh  church. 

To  this  you  fee  fit  to  reply,  and  yoiu  reply  hath  the  ap- 
pearance of  a  laboured  attempt  to  confound  the  diftinction 
between  the  Jewifh  church  and  the  gofpel  church,  and  to 
make  your  readers  believe  them  to  be  both  one  and  the 
fame  thing.  Ycur  very  reply  goes  to  prove  that  your  prin- 
ciple would,  if  true,  throw  us  back  to  the  ftate  of  the  Jewifh 
church  ;  and  thus  it  proves  my  confequence  true. 

In  your  reply,  you  keep  a  juft  idea  of  the  Jewifh  church 
altogether  out  of  fight ;  you  do  not  mention  fo  much  as 
one  juft  trait  cf  it.  Your  arguments  to  prove  the  gofpel 
church  and  the  Jewifh  church  to  be  one,  are — Firjt,  God 
manifefted  great  kindnefs  to  the  Jewifh  church  ;  he  carried 
them  as  on  eagles'  wings,  and  fome  of  them  greatly  rejoiced  in 
the  Lord  :  Secondly,  That  the  Jewifh  church  con fi Red  of  fuch 
perfons  as  were  Abraham  and  Ifaac  :  thefe  are  your  words — 
*<  Are  Baptift  churches  generally  purer,  think  you,  than  a 
church  would  be  composed  of  fuch  perfons  as  Abraham  ; 
and  where  is  the  inconfiftehcy  or  danger  of  admitting  the 
teftimeny  of  the  Holy  Ghoft,  I  Cor.  vii.  14.  that  the  chil- 
dren are  vifibly  holy  as  Ifaac  was  V 

There  Is,  Sir,  no  inconfiftency  or  danger  in  admitting  the 
teflirr.ony  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  5  but  there  is  both  inconilftency 
and  danger  in  ivrefihig  the  teiitBQony  of  the  Holy  Ghoii.  or 
in  mife£> plying  it. 


64  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Auftin.       [Let.  IX. 

Why,  Sir,  do  you  not  come  out  in  fair  day-lu-Iit,  and  tell 
all  your  readers,  and  efpecially  fiich  as  love  darknefs  rather 
than  light,  that  the  Jewilh  church  confided  o£  all  the  rebefe* 
lious,  ftifT-necked,  and  infidel  Jews,  including  Scribes,  Fhari- 
fees,  Sadducees,  and  all  hypocrites  among  them,  as  well  as 
the  few  godly  ones  who  might  be  found  ;  and  that  the 
gofpel  church  is-juft  like  the  Jewilh,  fo  far  as  it  can  be,  by 
including  all  perfons,  of  every  defcription,  who  have  been 
baptized  or  fprinkled,  and  have  not  been  call  out  by  regular 
church  difcipline  ?  Come  out  thus,  and  let  poor  deluded 
fouls  know  your  real  fentiment,  or  a  fair  ftatement  of  it ; 
then  might  they  judge  for  themfel'ves.  If  you  deny  this 
being  your  fentiment,  I  will  prove  it  to  you.  Pages  87,  88, 
your  words  are — "  I  am  as  much  (hocked  at  your  dereliction 
of  infant  memberjinp  and  infant  bapufm,  as  I  fhould  have  been 
had  you  denied  the  obligation  of  family  prayer."  Now, 
Sir,  you  believe  that  baptized  or  fprinkled  infants  are  church 
members  :  the  confequence  is  this — A  large  part,  perhaps 
more  than  half,  of  the  infants,  children,  infidels,  drunkards, 
and  liars,  in  our  nation,  are  members  of  the  gofpel  church. 
Sir,  either  renounce  the  erroneous  principle  on  which  infant 
baptifm  hangs,  or  admit  the  legitimate  confequences,  and  make 
the  bed  of  them.  If  you  pleafe,  never  again  think  t£>  get 
rid  of  my  confequences,  by  telling  the  public  that  every 
intelligent  advocate  for  infant  baptifm  will  deny  them. 

I  have  one  thing  more  to  notice,  in  your  plea  for  the 
gofpel  church  being  the  fame  as  the  Jewifh  :  it  is  this — 
"  Row  does  paedobaptifm  ({:\y  you)  deitroy  the  very  idea 
of  the  gofpel  church  ?"  You,  Sir,  anfwer,  "  A  gofpel  church 
is  a  body  of  vifible  faints  or  holy  perfons."  What  do  you 
mean  by  this  anfwer  ?  If  you  mean,  by  vifible  faints  and 
holy  perfons,  fuch  as  appear  to  poilefs  holineis  of  heart,  or 
to  be  believers  in  Chrift,  I  readily  agree  to  it :  but,  Sir,  you 
mean  no  fuch  thing ;  you  mean,  a  gofpel  church  is  a  body 
of  perfons,  compofed  of  believing  parents,  together  with 
their  baptized  or  fprinkled  children,  let  their  children  be 
what  they  may,  believers  or  infidels,  if  they  have  not  been 
cut  oif  from  the  church  by  difcipline  :  or  you  mean  a  body 
of  per  Ions  made  up  of  a  number  of  converted  heads  of  fami- 
lies, with  their  ungodly,  unconverted  families.  See  your 
Letters,  pages  90,  91,  92,  and  elfewhere. 

This  is  the  way  which  your  own  church  is  made  up,  if 
your  practice  has  been  in  agreement  with  your  principles — 
holding  to  infant  membership,  and  children  memberfhip,  and 
fervant  membership. 


Let.  X.]         Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aujlin.  65 

I  do  not  mention  thefe  different  church  membermips, 
becaufe  I  wifh  to  caft  odium  on  your  character,  or  on  that 
of  your  brethren,  but  becaufe  I  confider  thefe  to  belong  to 
the  inevitable  confequences  of  your  principle,  which  every 
intelligent  advocate  for  infant  baptilm  ought  candidly  to  admit, 
and  becaufe  I  wifh  to  expofe  your  antichriftian  principle,  and 
your  correfponding  antichriftian  practice. 

Wiihing  you  reformation,  in  both  principle  and  practice, 

I  am,  &c. 


LETTER   X, 


REVEREND    SIR, 

I  HAVE  reviewed,  with  fbme  attention,  your  Ten  Let- 
ters, which  you  confider  as  an  Examination  or  my 
Seven  Sermons.  In  your  Letters,  which  you  have  given 
to  the  public,  you  have  laid  of  me  and  of  my  Sermons 
what  you  pleafed.  Of  your  performance,  I  have  not]  '  -  ^  to 
fay  as  to  its  ftrengtn  or  weaknefs,  or  with  refpecl  Co  your 
aftertions,  repetitions,  or  arguments  ;  they  are  all  before  the 
public,  as  are  my  Sermons,  and  as  this  Review  I  expect  will 
foon  be.  Not  only  are  my  Sermons  and  your  Examination 
before  the  public,  but  they  are  both  before  Him,  who  knows 
what  is  truth,  and  whether  either  of  us,  or  whether  both  of 
us  have  written  and  publillied  with  our  eye  tingle,  and  our 
wills  bowed  to  his. 

In  this  Letter  feveral  things  may  be  laid  before  you,  vAtih 
a  defire  that  you  may  receive  the  light  of  gofpel  truth,  rela- 
tive to  the  firft  gofpel  ordinance :  but,  Sir,  unlefs  God  be 
pleafed  to  give  you  a  large  fiare  of  grace,  you  will  not  {o 
much  defire  the  light  of  conviction,  as  the  light  by  which  to 
refute  what  I  have  written.  But  if  there  be  no  hope  of  your 
conviction  from  any  argument  of  mine,  yet  it  is  poffible  that 
you  will  yield  to  your  own  arguments.;  for  you  have,  indeed, 
given  us  the  outlines  of  an  argument  or  two,  the  force  of 
which  I  fee  not  "now  you  will  handfomely  evade. 

Your  firft  premife  is — "  There  muft  be  fome  evident  like- 
nefs  between  the  fubject  to  which  a  word  is  applied  in  the 
natural,  primitive  ufe  of  it,  and  the  fubject  to  which  it  is 
applied  as  a  figure,  otherwife  there  is  a  grofs  impropriety  in 
the  figurative  ufe  of  it."  You  cannot  eafily  get  rid  of  the 
plain  truth  of  this  your  major  proportion. 

G 


65  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aujlin.        [Let.  X, 

Your  fecond  premife  is — The  baptifm  of  the  Holy  Ghoft 
is  a  fubjeft  to  which  the  words  burying  and  rifing  as  from 
the  dead,  are  applied  as  a  figure,  and  water  baptifm  is  un- 
doubtedly a  fymbol'oi  the  baptifm  of  the  Holy  Ghoft.  Thefe 
are  your  o<wn  premif-s,  (fee  pages  61,  44,  $$,  34.)  You  are 
defired  to  draw  your  c<wn  conclujion. 

You  will  permit  me  to  refrelh  your  memory,  with  a  con- 
fefhon  and  promife,  which  you  made  to  me  in  your  firft. 
Letter,  and  in  thefe  words,  ««  As  for  me,  I  confider  truth 
infinitely  preferable  to  any  party  intereft,  and  promife  to  you 
that  I  will  yield  to  evidence,  as  foon  as  it  is  prefented." 

Another  of  your  arguments  in  favour  of  the  Baptifts  (hall 
be  prefented  ;  for  I  fmcerely  wim  that  your  arguments  may 
be  found  unanfwerable,  and  that  they  may  iniuumentally 
produce  your  thorough  converfion. 

Your  major  propofition,  in  this  fecond  argument,  is — The 
fubjecl  in  debate  between  the  Baptifts  and  Psedobaptifts,  is 
of  great  importance,  and  it  can  be  brought  to  an  iifue,  and 
it  miijl  be  brought  to  an  iifue.      (See  page  98.) 

Your  minor  propofition  is — "  All  the  treatifes  and  fchemes 
which  the  Pasdobaptifts  have  produced,  in  order  to  fettle  this 
debate,  have  been  emlarrajfcd  with  material  objections,"  page 
95.  It  therefore  cannot  be  brought  to  an  iifue  upon  their 
embarrajjed  treatifes  or  fchemes,  "  but  it  can  be  brought  to  an 
iifue,  and  it  mujl  be  brought  to  an  iifue." 

Conclufion — We  can  be  Baptifts,  and  we  mufi  be  Baptifts, 
and  that  will  bring  the  debate  to  an  ijfue. 

Now,  Sir,  I  will  prefent  you  with  an  argument  or  two, 
which  may  be  partly  yours  and  partly  mine. 

What  I  fay  is,  The  plain,  the  literal,  the  common  mean- 
ing of  the  word  to  baptize  is  to  immerfe,  bury,  overwhelm, 
put  into  water,  or  the  like :  you  fay  this  is  the  meaning 
fbmetimes,  efpecially  when  it  means  to  baptize  with  the 
Holy  Ghoft,  and  water  baptifm  is  undoubtedly  a  fymbol  of 
the  baptifm  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  %  therefore,  the  plain,  literal, 
and  common  fenfe  of  the  baptifmal  command  is,  that  the 
fubjects  of  baptifm  fljould  be  immerfed,  buried,  or  put  into 
water,  or  the  like. 

Again — what  I  fay  is,  The  word  to  baptize  hath  in  the 
Bible  no  meaning  different  from  immerfion,  overwhelming, 
or  the  like.  You  have  tried,  and  have  found  nothing,  to 
prove  that  it  hath  any  opponte  meaning,  except  it  be  by 
inppofitions,  which  ycu  fay  are  miferable  arguments  :  there- 
fore, the  only  Bible  meaning  of  the  word  to  baptize  is  to 
immerfe,  overwhelm,  or  the  like  ;  or  at  molt,  there  is  noth- 
ing againft  it  but  miferabh  arguments. 


Let.  X.]        Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aiiftin.  6j 

Again — The  word  baptifm,  and  even  in  Heb.  ix.  10. 
where  it  is  laid  divers  baptifm s,  the  meaning  is  divers  appli- 
cations of  water  to  divers  fubjecls,  all  which  imply  immer- 
fion,  or  putting  into  water,  or  the  like,  or  at  beft  there  is 
nothing  but  fuppofitions  againft  this  being  the  fenfe  ;  and 
even  if  it  had  any  different  fenfe,  fmce  the  gofpel  baptifm  is 
but  one  baptifm,  and  this  is  certainly  immeriion  fometimes, 
as  when  they  were  baptized  in  the  river,  and  when  they 
were  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghoft,  of  which  water  baptifm 
is  a  fymbol ;  and,  confequently,  at  all  times ;  the  conclufion 
is  ftfll  the  fame — that  the  only  go/pel  baptifm  is  by  tmmerfion. 

Another  matter,  quite  worthy  of  your  attention,  I  have 
to  lay  before  you  and  your  brethren  :  it  is  this — You  and 
your  brethren  have  preiurned  to  claim  fome  authority,  or  at 
leaft  credit,  for  psedobaptifm,  and  for  fprinkling  children, 
from  confeffors  and  martyrs,  who  have  held  thofe  tradition- 
ary practices.  Now,  Sir,  the  fact  appears  to  be,  that  you 
have  not  the  leaft  fliadow  of.  ground  for  any  of  your  pre- 
tended authority  or  credit  from  this  quarter.  It  is  manifeft, 
that  you  do  but  amufe  and  miflead  your  hearers  and  leaders, 
in  the  whole  of  tins  bufinefs.  Where  are  your  martyrs,  who 
have  died  in  defence  of  psedobaptifm  and  fprinkling  ?  Do 
you  find  them  in  Fox's  martyrology  ?  Do  you  find  them  in 
the  Bible  ?  Do  you  find  them  any  where  ?  No,  Sir,  you 
find  no  fuch  martyrs,  either  amongft  Proteftants  or  Papifts. 
You  find  good  men  and  martyrs  amongft  thofe  who  have 
embraced  the  error  of  baptizing  children,  and  even  among 
thofe  who  may  have  conferred  to  fprinkle  them  ;  but  not 
one  who  has  ever  laid  down  his  life  as  a  witnefs  for  either 
of  thofe  errors  ;  indeed,  there  has  been  no  call  for  any  to 
do  thus  ;  for  his  holinefs  the  pope,  and  his  clergy,  the  cage  of 
unclean  birds,  and  other  portions  of  antichriit,  have  never 
oppofed  thefe  errors.  It  appears  that  Satan  would  be  di- 
vided againft  himfeif,  mould  he  ftimulate  any  of  his  fubjecls 
to  perfecute  unto  death  any  good  men,  for  holding  either 
of  thefe  antichriftian  traditions.  But  both  Papifts  and  Pro- 
tectant Paeaobaptifts  have  perfecuted  unto  various  kinds  of 
death,  the  Baptiils,  who  have  nobly  laid  down  their  lives,  as 
witnerfes  for  the  gofpel  baptifm  and  the  gofpel  fubjects. 

For  oppofing  infant  baptifm,  and  for  maintaining  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Baptifts,  hundreds,  about  the  year  1529,  were  put 
to  death  at  Saltzburg,  in  the  Palatinate,  at  Altze,  in  Ger- 
many, and  at  many  other  places,  and  at  many  other  times.* 

*  See  Crcfby's  Hiftory  of  the  Englith  Saptifts,  Preface,  psge  30  ;  and 
Hiftory,  pages  3*,  4a,  &c 


68  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aujl'in.        [Let.  X. 

The  general  manner  of  their   death  was   to  be   beheaded, 
roafted,  or  drowned. 

It  would,  indeed,  have  been  a  furprifing  thing,  had  it 
been  as  you  and  your  brethren  intimate,  that  good  men 
have  died  as  witnerfes  of  the  traditions  of  popes  and  councils. 
Wicked  men  may  die,  in  vindication  of  their  own  errors  ; 
but  we  are  not  to  expect  that  good  men  will  die  as  martyrs, 
for  the  errors  which  the  wicked  have  propagated  among  the 
faints.  You  will  be  kind  enough,  I  hope,  never  to  force 
this  argument  into  your  fervice  again,  till  you  can,  amongft 
all  the  martyrs  of  Jefus,  find  one  who  has  been  called  to  lay 
down  his  life,  as  a  witnefs  to  your  error  of  fprinkling  children. 

Your  attention  is  requefied,  Sir,  to  one  thing  more.  You 
and  your  brethren  are  not  only  contrary  from  both  the  Old 
Teftament  and  the  New,  but  you  are  contrary  from  each 
other,  and  you  begin  to  be  contrary  from  all  men.  From 
your  Examination  of  my  Sermons,  pages  12,  13,  16,  17,  you 
appear  not  to  know  when  baptiim  is  to  be  adminiftered ; 
whether  at  the  time  when  members  are  admitted  into  the 
church,  foon  after  it,  or  long  after,  or  whether  it  be  necerTary 
at  all,  in  order  to  church  mernberfhip,  or  whether  before  or 
after  the  Lord's  fupper.  When  men  come  to  know  nothing 
about  a  fubject,  prudence  dictates  that  it  is  time  to  drop  it. 
You  would  never  traverfe  fuch  a  crooked  courfe,  with  rela- 
tion to  baptifm,  did  you  underftand  how  to  go  ftraight. 
You  would,  Sir,  do  well  to  fay  no  more  about  baptifm,  or 
elfe  take  the  Bible  for  your  guide,  or  pay  iome  attention  to 
the  church  of  Chrift,  which  is  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the 
truth  :  you  now  fet  afide  both,  and  hence  it  is  that  you  have 
loft:  fight  of  the  fubject.  You  muft,  indeed,  perfuade  Chrif- 
tians  to  believe  baptifm  to  be  of  little  worth,  or  they  cannot 
reft  contented  with  the  manner  of  your  handling  that  im- 
portant gofpel  ordinance. 

You  inform  us,  that  no  one  hath  written  well  on  the  fub- 
ject  of  baptifm,  or  "  that  there  is  no  fcheme  but  what  is 
embarraffed  with  material  objections,"  (page  94,)  or  at  lead, 
there  is  none  on  your  fide  of  the  qneftion  but  what  is  thus 
embarratfed.  At  the  fame  time,  you  treat  with  very  little 
refpect  what  hath  been  attempted  by  the  Baptifts  :  this  being 
the  cafe,  the  public  will  probably  expect  not  only  fomething 
new  on  the  fubject,  and  fomething  great,  but  fomething  free 
of  embarrafTmcnts,  when  you  mall  fee  fit  to  favour  them 
with  your  volume,  which  you  encourage  us  to  expect. 

Wiihing  you  the  true  knowledge  of  gofpel  baptiim, 

I  am,  &c. 


Let.  XL]       Letters  io  Rev.  Mr.  Aujlin*  69, 


LETTER   XL 

REVEREND    SIR, 

HAVING  traverfed  through  your  Letters,  I  proceed  to 
your  Appendix.  In  it  you  were  pleafed  to  notice  my 
pamphlet,  entitled,  Open  Communion  with  all  <who  keep  the  Or- 
dinances as  Chriji  delivered  them  to  the  Saints.  "As  it  comes 
cut  in.the  form  of  letters,  addrefTed  to  Mr.  Anderfon,  the 
duty  of  replying  to  it  (fay  you)  is  properly  his,  I  (hall  not 
take  it  out  of  his  hands,  but  beg  leave  to  trouble  you  with  a. 
few  remarks  on  what  I  find  in  this  work." 

Mr.  Anderfon  is,  Sir,  confeiTedly  the  proper  perfon  to 
reply,  and  no  doubt  he  will,  if  he  dill  confider  his  ground 
defenfible,  and  have  arguments  at  hand  for  the  bufinefs ; 
but  as  my  Letters  to  him  were  net  of  a  private  or  perfonal 
nature,  but  implicated  all  his  denomination,  as  being  with, 
him  in  the  fame  error,  he  probably  will  not  take  it  unkindly,. 
that  you  fent  out  your  Appendix,  as  a  precurfor  to  what 
might  foljow.  You,  Sir.  it  is  p relumed,  laid  but  little  in 
your  Appendix,  compared  with  what  you  confider  might  be- 
faid;  you  will,  therefore,  not  be  oifended,  mould  I,  whilfl 
replying  to  you,  keep  fomething  in  refer ve  againft  Mr.  An- 
derfon mall  appear  with  the  main  body  of  arguments  :  I 
ili-ill,  however,  endeavour  to  iilence  fome.  of  your  fuppofed 
refutation,  and  remove  your  fuppofed  llrength,  in  which: 
you  truft. 

It  is  worthy  to  be  noticed,  that  in  the  fecond  page  of? 
your  Appendix,  you  tell  me,  "  that  I  am  relponfible  to  the- 
religious  public,  to  prove  that  to  baptize  invariably  means. 
to  immerfe,  and  that  only.'*  I  confider  this,  Sir,  to  be 
already  done,  at  lead  {o  far  that  you  have  not  been  able  ta 
difprove  it :  befides,  this  point  may  receive  fome  additional 
light,  before  the  Letters  now  writing  (hall  be  doled. 

You  add,  in  the  fame  page,  "  The  world  mail  not  be 
impofed  upon  by  round  aiferticns  and  dogmatic  declama- 
tion," nor  by  fuppofnicns,  you  fhould  have  faid.  "  We  are 
not  (fay  you)  to  be  puc  out  of  the  vilibie  fociety  of  believes s, 
but  for  fome  evident  disqualifying  reafon.  And  now  you. 
are  fei  iouily  called  upon  to  prove  from  the  Bible,  what  with 
fuch  an  air  of  certainty  you  afTume."  Have  patience  with 
me,  and  if  the  Lord  will,  I  (hall  endeavour  all  you  afki 
this  you  may  expeel  in  my  next  Letter. 

G.    2 


jo  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Auftin.       [Let.  XI. 

In  page  99,  you  tell  us,  that  "  the  difficulty  is  wholly  on 
oui  part,  and  that  it  is  without  foundation."     Here,  bir,  you 
miftake  in  whole.     Is  the  difficulty  on  our  part,  when  you 
are  continually  taking  from  the  people  the  key  of  knowledge, 
by  'ivrejllng  the  Scriptures,  by  mifappVying  them,  and  by 
many  erroneous  interpretations,  fo  far  as  they  refpect  gofpel 
baptifm  and  its  l'ubjeers  \    Not  only  fo,  but  ye  enter  not  into 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  yourfelves,  and  them  that  are  enter- 
ing in  ye  hinder.     The  whole  tenor  of  your  Letters  to  me, 
is  to  juftify  your  own  neglect  of  duty,  as  it  refpects  baptifm, 
and  to  prevent  others  from  complying  with  theirs :    or,  (to 
exprefs  the  matter  in  milder  terms,)  the  manifeft   object  of 
your  Letters  is  to  juftify  your  practice  of  fprinkling  inftead 
of  immerfion,  and  to  encourage  others  to  believe  and  practife 
the  fame,  when  you  have  not  found,  and   cannot  find,  one 
fentence  or  word  in  all  the  Scriptures,  to  warrant  your  prac- 
tice,  or  juftify  your  departure  from  gofpel  baptifm.     You 
have  fearched,  and  by  fearching  have  found  that  you  have 
nothing  but  fuppofitions  and  uncertain  conjectures,  for  your 
infant  fprinkling  or  infant  baptifm.     Mlfcrable  bafis  this,  for 
the  foundation  of  our  faith  in  the  firft  gofpel  ordinance. 
On  fuch  a  bafis  Hands  your  faith  ;  and  by  fuch  weak  and 
beggarly  arguments  would  you  drive  us  from  gofpel  bap- 
tiim,  or  to  confent  to  the  validity  of  fprinkling  ;  and  not 
only  fo,  but  you  contend  with  us,  becaufe  we  choole  not  to 
reft  our  faith  and  venture  our  practice  on  fuch  conjectural 
ground,  when  we  have  for  our  prefent  faith  and  practice  the 
broad  bafis  of  all  the  Bible,  fairly  and  unequivocally  in  our 
favour,  fo  far  as  it  mentions  the  fubject.     You  fiirely  ought 
to  have  had  better  arguments,  and  fome  facts  in  your  favour, 
before  you  pronounced,  in  the  face  of  infpiration  and  before 
the  world,  "  that  the  difficulty  is  wholly  on  the  BaptiuV 
part,  and  without  foundation." 

The  next  and  lad  thing  in  your  pamphlet  is  now  to  be 
confidered  :  it  is  your  particular  refutation  of  my  fentiments 
on  open  communion  with  all  who  keep  the  ordinances  as 
Chrift  delivered  them  to  the  faints.  This  your  fuppofed  re- 
flation mnft  have  a  particular  examination,  for  it  is  calcu- 
lated to  miflead  thofe  who  examine  things  very  partially. 
.  I  propofe  to  ftate  your  refutation  as  explicitly  as  I  can, 
and  try  its  ftrength  as  concifely  as  may  be.  You  begin 
your  refutation  thus — "  The  leading  principles  of  your  de- 
fence feem  to  be  thefe  : — 

"  I.    The  fault,  fay  you,  is  wholly  ours,  becaufe  we  re- 
fufe  to  fubmit  to  an  exprefsly  appointed  ordinance  of  the 


Let.  XL]       Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aiiftin.  7 1 

gofpel."  "  We  contend,  that  we  as  feriouily  reverence,  and 
as  conic ientioufly  obferve  this  ordinance,  as  the  Baptiits ; 
but  your  manner  of  applying  water,  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghoft,  has  nothing 
to  Ao  with  baptifm :  here  we  are  at  ifTue.  You  have  yet 
furnifhed  no  proof;  we  have  furnifhed  clear  demonjlration  to 
the  contrary." 

Anf.  This,  Sir,  is  the  whole  of  your  refutation  of  what 
you  let  down  for  my  firft  principle. 

I  have  two  queflions  to  propofe,  and  then  fhall  leave  this 
part  of  your  refutation  to  your  future  reflections.  The  frjl 
is,  you  fay,  "  We  as  ferioufly  reverence,  and  as  confcien- 
tiouJly  obferve  the  gofpel  ordinance  of  baptifm,  as  the  Bap- 
tifts."  What  do  you  call  a  ferious  and  confcientious  ob- 
fervance  of  this  ordinance  ?  Saying  all  you  can  againft  it  ? 
Refufmg  to  fubmit  to  it,  and  fubftituting  man's  invention 
in  the  room  of  it  ?  We  wilh  you  to  be  delivered  from  filch 
ferious  and  confcientious  obfervances  of  the  commandments 
and  inventions  of  men.  Belides,  it  is  your  fentiment,  that 
this  ordinance  is  to  be  obferved  or  received  when  we  are 
infants,  when  we  can  know  nothing  about  it.  How  much 
ferious  reverence  and  conjeientiovfnefs  infants  have  we  know  not. 
Secondly — The  ftrength  of  your  refutation  is  fuppofed,  no 
doubt,  to  be  in  your  concluding  words,  which  are,  "  You 
have  yet  furniihed  no  proof;  we  have  furnifhed  clear  demon- 
Jlratlon  to  the  contrary.'*  This  is  worthy  of  obfervation — 
"  We  have  furnifhed  (fay  you)  clear  demonftration  !"  The 
queftion  is,  to  whom  ?  and  where  ?  we  have  not  feen  it. 
Clear  demonftration !  this  is  all  we  want :  if  you  have  fur- 
nifhed it,  it  ought  to  have  been  written  in  capitals,  that  not 
one  of  your  readers  mould  have  pafTed  it  over  unnoticed. 
The  truth  is,  you  have  miftaken  the  bufinefs  :  you  have 
furniihed  no  demonfu  ation  of  any  kind,  lave  it  be  this,  that 
you  are  oppofmg  the  wily  gofpel  baptifm,  and  that  the  con- 
trary from  what  you  advocate  is  true. 

Your  ftatement  of  my  next  principle  is, 

"  II.  You  tell  us,  (fay  you  to  me)  the  perfect  idea  in 
the  prefent  controverfy  is,  "  The  actual  comrfiunion  at  the 
Lord's  table  is  to  be  confined  to  baptized  believers.'* 

This  principle,  Sir,  you  implicitly  grant  to  be  true,  and 
my  ftatement  juft  ;  and  contend  that  you  are  baptized  ;  and, 
inltead  of  clear  demonstration,  bring  In  your  congregations  as 
witnefles  that  you  have  been  the  fubjects  of  gofpel  baptifm, 
"by  your  having  been  fprinkled  in  your  infancy,  which  is  a 
mere  human  fubftitute  for  gofpel  baptifm.     But,   Sir,  you 


72  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Auftin.       [Let.  XL 

know,  or  ought  to,  that  thefe  congregations,  from  whom 
you  have  fo  taken  the  key  of  knowledge,  that  they  know 
not  what  baptifm  is,  or  to  whom  it  mould  be  adminillered, 
are  no  witne/Tes  in  this  cafe.  You  have  taught  them  to 
mifunderftand  the  plain  fenfe  of  the  Bible,  and  to  read 
fprinkling  for  baptifm,  and  Abraham's  houfehold  for  difci- 
ples  of  Chrift ;  and  now  would  conftrain  us  to  admit  them 
as  witneifes.  No,  Sir,  we  thall  admit  no  fuch  fuborned  or 
tutored  evidence  :  we  alk  for  your  clear  demonjlration. 

III.  You  ftate  my  third  principle  to  be — "  The  being 
born  of  water  or  baptifm,  is  the  perfect  and  vifible  line  of 
feparation  between  the  vifible  kingdom  of  Chrift  and  the 
kingdoms  of  this  world."  "  Your  grand,  and  as  far  as  I 
have  obferved,  your  only  text  to  prove  this  is  John  iii.  5. 
'  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water,  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  can- 
not enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God.'  But  this  darling 
doctrine  is  refuted —  , 

"1.  By  what  you  do  ;  for  you  baptize  perfons  upon  the 
ground  of  evidence  that  they  have  been  already  born  of  the 
Spirit,  and  therefore  are,  before  baptifm,  vifible  believers." 
jinf.  This,  Sir,  we  at  once  grant,  but  how  does  this  refute 
my  doctrine  ?  But  you  add,  "  and  of  the  kingdom,"  as 
though  to  be  a  vifible  believer,  and  a  member  of  the  vijible 
kingdom  of  Chrift,  were  one  and  the  fame  thing.  By  thus 
confounding  things  you  may  kjep  truth  out  of  fight,  and 
blind  your  readers,  but  you  can  never  in  this  way  refute  my 
doctrine. 

"2.  This  darling  doctrine  (fay  you  to  me)  is  refuted  by 
what  you  fay  ;  for  you  tell  us,  that  John's  baprifm  waft 
gofpel  baptifm  ;  that  the  multitudes  from  all  Judea  and 
Jerufalem,  who  en.braced  John's  bapiifm,  previouily  brought 
forth  fruits  of  repentance,  yet  when  they  were  baptized  they 
were  only  prepared  to  be  introduced  into  die  kingdom  of 
the  Meffiah."  Sir,  I  find  no  fault  when  you  mifquote  my 
words,  provided  you  retain  the  idea,  but  here  you  have-mif- 
taken  both.  Speaking  of  the  people  made  ready  and  pre- 
pared by  John,  my  words  are,  page  49,  *  Of  this  people,  and 
of  this  only,  for  aught  appears,  Chrift  took  and  formed  the 
flrft  vifible  gofpJ  church  ;  or  this  prepared  people  were  the 
church,  though  not  yet  organized. '  Had  you  quoted  my 
words,  this  part  of  your  refutation  might  have  been  fpared, 

3.  You  tell  me  that  my  doctrine  "is  refuted  by  the  text 
itfelf ;  for  whatever  be  defigned  by  the  kingdom  of  God, 
and  whatever  is  to  be  underftood  here  by  being  born  of 
water  and  of  the  Spirit,  both  are  neceifary,  as  prc-requihtes 


Let,  XL]        Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aujlin.  J$ 

to  a  perfon's  entering  into  the  kingdom  of  God.  The  birth 
goes  before  the  entrance."  Anf.  If  you  will  be  kind  enough 
to  inform  the  public  for  how  long  a  time  a  peribn  mull  be 
born  before  he  enters  into  the  world,  then  they  will  poftefs 
a  neceifary  datum  to  underftand  your  new  doctrine,  that  the 
birth  goes  before  the  entrance ;  till  you  do  this,  your  third 
refutation  might  alfo  have  been  fpared,  for  the  public  will 
not  be  able  to  understand  this  new  doctrine,  without  fome 
clue  to  it.  In  the  mean  time,  the  common  fenfe  of  the 
public  will  lead  them  to  believe  my  doctrine,  that  the  birth 
is  ihe  entrance. 

Say  you  again,  "  The  being  born  of  water  is  placed  before 
being  bom  of  the  Spirit."  Anf.  If  you  will  read  the  third 
vei:e,  which  you  had  jufl  mentioned,  which  fpeaks  of  being 
born  again,  you  may  find  your  miftake. 

4.  My  doctrine,  you  fay,  "  is  refuted  by  abundance  of 
other  Scripture  evidence ;  for  example,  there  were  multi- 
tudes who  belonged  to  the  viable  kingdom  of  God  before 
Chrift,  who  were  net  born  of  water."  Anf.  You  ought, 
Sir,  to  have  told  us  where  this  Scripture  evidence  is,  which 
proves  that  what  Chrift  faid  is  not  true.  Chriit  faith,  «  Ver- 
ily, verily,  I  fay  unto  you,  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water, 
and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God.' 
You  fay  there  is  Scripture  evidence,  trut  multitudes  have 
belonged  to  the  vifible  kingdom  of  God  before  Chrift,  who 
were  not  born  of  water.  Befides,  Sir,  Chrift  fpeaks,  Mat. 
iv.  17.  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  as  not  having  made  its 
public  appearance,  but  as  being  then  at  hand.  Where  you 
fee  fit  to  contradict  Jeius  Chrift,  in  direci^erms,  I  leave  you 
to  anfwer  it  to  him. 

In  the  next  place,  you  tell  us,  u  that  Chrift  himfelf  was 
never  born  of  water."  Had  you  forgotten,  or  did  you 
fuppofe  that  none  of  your  readei  s  would  recollect,  Mark  i. 
9.  that  Jefus  came  from  Nazareth  of  Galilee,  and  was  bap- 
tized of  John  in  Jordan? 

Again,  fay  you,  "  Matthew  and  Levi,  Philip  and  Nathan- 
ael,  Andrew  and  Peter,  and  probably  the  reft  of  Chriit 's 
difciples,  were  not  born  of  water,  as  the  commencement  of 
their  vifible  (landing  as  his  difciples."  But  had  not  thefe 
been  born  of  water,  baptized,  of  John  ?  Had  not  John 
made  them  ready  \ 

.  "  The  penitent  thief  upon  the  crofs  (fay  you)  was  not 
born  of  water,  and  yet  the  atteftation  of  Chrift  in  his  behalf 
determines  him  to  be  a  vifible  member  of  his  kingdom." 
Here,  Sir,  you  have  either  a  double  intention,  or  you  di- 


74  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aujlin.       [Let.  XL 

rectly  contradict  the  Saviour ;  in  either  cafe  I  leave  you  to 
your  own  reflections.  Befides,  our  Lord  did  not  fay  that 
the  thief  belonged  to  his  vifible  kingdom,  but  that  he  ihould 
that  day  be  with  him  in  paradife. 

Again,  you  fay,  4<  Cornelius,  Paul,  and  the  Ethiopian 
eunuch,  were  certainly  vifible  believers  before  they  were 
born  of  water."  Did  any  perfon  ever  deny  it?  I' certainly 
do  not,  nor  ever  did  :  but  this  is  as  far  from  the  fubject  in 
debate,  as  the  north  is  from  the  fouth.  The  queftion,  which 
you  appear  to  have  forgotten,  is,  Whether  any  ever  belong- 
ed to  the  kingdom  of  God,  the  vifible  church,  without  being 
born  of  water  \  Not  whether  any  have  been  believers  before 
they  were  born  of  water :  for  my  principle  is,  and  the  prin- 
ciple of  the  Bible  is.  that  none  are  to  be  baptized  but  vifible 
believers,  and  that  fuch  are  to  be  baptized,  and  thus  intro- 
duced into  the  vilible  church. 

5.  "  Your  doctrine  (fay  you  to  me)  is  refuted  by  what 
you  prefume  is  my  view  of  the  condition  of  many  who  die, 
either  in  their  infancy,  or  childhood,  or  youth,  without  hav- 
ing ever  been  immerfed." 

Anf.  Do  you  fuppofe  that  I  believe  that  infants,  and  chil- 
dren, and  youth,  who  have  not  been  immerfed,  belong  to 
the  vifible  kingdom  of  God  ?  If  you  do,  you  rnqft  certainly 
mud  be  quite  unacquainted  with  what  I  believe.  Perhaps 
your  idea  is  this,  that  I  believe  fome  infants,  children,  and 
youth,  who  have  not  been  immerfed,  may  go  to  heaven,  and 
be  finally  faved.  This,  Sir,  I  do  believe  ;  but  what  hath 
this  to  do  with  the  prefent  controverfy  ?  As  foon  as  you 
mall  underftandingly  compare  this  part  of  your  fuppofed 
refutation  with  tha  doctrine  to  be  refuted,  you  will  fee  that 
they  have  no  connexion  with  each  other,  and  the  one  can 
never  be  injured  by  the  other. 

You  clofe  your  refutation  of  my  exclufi  ve  doctrine,  as 
you  term  it,  by  faying,  "  It  is  enough,  if  the  fmgle  principle 
of  your  exclufive  doctrine  is  found  to  be  unfcriptural." 
True,  Sir,  this  would  be  enough  ;  and  had  you  been  able  to 
have  found  one  fcripture  againft  it,  you  would  have  deferved 
well ;  but  a  thoufand  texts  which  fay  nothing  about  it,  will 
never  prove  it  unfcriptural. 

Upon  another  of  my  leading  principles,  you  obferve, 

■  IV.  To  juftify  your  denying  us  communion  at  the 
Lord's  table,  you  fay,  «  Not  the  leaft  intimation  is  given, 
that  ever  one  was  admitted  to  the  Lord's  table  prior  to  his 
being  baptized.**     In  reply  to  this,  I  obferve, 

"  I.  That  our  proof  that  we  are  baptized  is  as  clear  ag 


Let.  XL]       Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Au/lin.  75 

yours  is  that  you  are  baptized."  AnJ.  This  is  the  very 
thing  for  you  to  prove. 

"  2.  It  is  evident  (fay  you)  that  the  difciples  were  ad- 
mitted to  communion  with  their  Lord  at  the  fupper,  and 
yet  there  is  no  evidence  that  they  were  ever  baptized." 
Anf,  There  is  no  evidence  but  they  were,  and  fo  it  helps 
you  not.  Such  arguments  would  never  help  a  good  caufe. 
Befides,  there  is  evidence  that  they  were  baptized,  Luke  vii. 

29.  *  And  all  the  people  that  heard  him, juftified  God, 

being  baptized  with  the  baptilm  of  John  ;'  and  thus  it  ruins 
this  part  of  your  caufe. 

"  3.  The  exprefs  command  of  Chrift  to  his  followers, 
indifcriminately,  is,  Do  this  in  remembrance  of  me.  You 
muft,  therefore,  prove,  either  that  we  are  not  his  followers, 
or  that  ycu  have  a  warrant  to  difpenfe  with  that  law,  and 
deny  us  the  privilege  of  complying  with  it."  Certainly, 
Sir,  I  muft  prove  one  of  thefe,  and  nothing  is  eafier  than  to 
prove  the  firft — that  you  are  not  his  followers,  in  that  very 
example,  the  copying  of  which  is  indifpenfable,  if  you  will 
enter  into  his  vifible  kingdom.  Chrift  was  baptized  in  Jor- 
dan ;  you  refufe  to  be  baptized  any  where ;  you  will  only 
be  fprinkled  :  thus  you  are  not  his  followers  in  the  firft 
gofpel  ordinance  ;  and  he  hath  no  where  commanded  you, 
or  any  others,  to  partake  of  the  fecond  ordinance,  whilft 
they  neglect,  much  lefs  whilft  they  deny  the  firft.  You 
have  never  vifibly  forfaken  all  that  ycu  have  for  Chrift's 
fake  and  the  gofpePs :  in  no  other  way  can  you  becon  e 
Chrift's  vifible  difciples,  fee  Luke  xiv.  33.  There  is  bit 
one  way  pointed  cut  in  the  gofpel,  by  which  we  are  mani- 
feftly  to  forfake  all,  at  the  commencement  of  our  vifible 
diiciplefhip,  and  that  one  way  is  to  be  born,  into  his  king- 
dom, of  water,  or  to  be  baptized.  You  reject  this  counfel 
of  Gcd  againit  yourfelves — you  refufe  to  be  born  of  water, 
or  to  be  baptized  ;  you,  therefore,  are,  in  this  important 
article,  not  his  followers,  and  fo  not  of  the  vifible  kingdom 
of  heaven.  There  is  no  law  which  requires  you  to  come, 
till  you  be  followers  of  Chrift,  and  members  of  his  vifible 
kingdom,  nor  is  there  any  law  of  Chrift's  which  allows  you 
to  come  before :  we  are,  therefore,  under  obligation  to  refufe 
you  admittance  among  us. 

You  fay,  again,  "  You  muft  mow  us  that  Chrift  has  fome- 
where  made  this  deficiency,  (i.  e.  the  want  of  baptifm)  in 
all  cafes,  a  bar  to  communion  at  his  table."  No,  Sir,  (now 
us  where  any  have  liberty  to  come  with  this  deficiency 
about  therm 


j  6  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aufiin.       [Let.  XL 

Page  105,  you  quote  the  following  lines — 

"  Do  this,  he  cries,  till  time  fhall  end, 
"  In  naem'ry  of  your  dying  Friend; 
"  Mett  at  my  table  and  record 
"  The  love  of  your  departed  Lord." 

"We  feel  (fay  you)  all  the  tendernefs  of  this  invitation, 
and  folicit  a  place  among  the  guefts."  We  fay,  come  and 
welcome  ;  but  come  according  to  the  pattern,  example,  and 
commandment  given.  But  you  make  my  anfwer  to  be  very 
different :  you  tell  the  public  that  my  reply  to  your  folici- 
tation  is,  "  No,  avaunt,  you  are  not  among  the  followers  of 
Jefus  ;  you  are  unbapt\%ul  heathen."  This,  Sir,  is  an  impru- 
dent expreflion  ;  and  I  have  juit  caufe  to  call  you  to  ac- 
count before  the  public,  for  manufacturing  fuch  an  indecent 
anfwer,  and  palming  it  upon  your  readers  as  being  mine. 
You  have,  Sir,  faid  hard  things  enough  in  your  pamphlet, 
without  this  attempt  to  make  me  appear  uncivil. 

By  what  you  fay,  pages  106,  107,  it  is  manifeft,  that  you 
are  qaite  dhpleafed  with  the  name  given  to  your  denomina- 
tion, which  is  peculiarly  your  own.  By  the  name  Pa*do- 
rantifls,  you  ought  ever  willingly  to  be  known,  till  you 
change  your  practice.  If  you  diilike  your  name,  do  you 
fuppofe  thfrt  the  great  Kead  of  the  church  will  be  pleafed 
with  your  practice,  which  anfwers  exactly  to  it  ?  You  con- 
fider  Psedorantiits  to  be  a  contemptuous  name  ;  if  it  indeed 
be  fo,  your  practice  is  a  contemptuous  practice,  for  the  name 
and  the  practice  perfectly  agree  together.  Your  practice  is 
indeed  contemptuous,  for  it  contemns  the  ordinance  of  Jefus 
Chrift,  for  which  it  is  fubftituted.  By  this  fubftitution  you 
have  polluted  the  ordinance  of  the  Lord,  or  made  it  void 
by  the  traditions  of  men  \  and  it  is  time  for  you  to  inquire 
how  you  fhall  anfwer,  when  he  mall  afk  by  what  authority 
you  have  done  thefe  things.  The  argument  which  you  now 
ufe,  that  great  and  learned  men  have  thus  done,  will  be  but 
a  poor  one  then.  This  argument  is  no  better  than  the  Jews 
might  have  ufed  in  Nehermah's  day,  when  their  fathers  had 
not  kept  the  feaft  of  tabernacles  in  its  order,  according  to 
the  command,  for  a  thoufand  years.  The  truth  is,  from 
the  days  of  your  fathers  ye  have  gone  away  from  the  Lord's 
ordinance  of  baptifm,  and  have  not  kept  it.  Return  unto 
the  Lord,  and  he  will  return  unto  you. 

I  agree,  Sir,  never  to  give  you  the  appellation,  Pa^doran- 
tifts,  after  you  fhall  produce  one  example,  precept,  or  fair 
and  full  Scripture  confequence,  to  fhow  that  fpnnkling  is  fo 
much  as  once,  in  all  the  Bibie,  put  for  Chriitian  baptifm. 


Let.  XL]       Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aitftin.  77 

If  this  cannot  be  done,  you  do  not  appear  to  advantage,  to 
manifeft:  any  uneafinefs  at  your  name,  which  perfectly  defig- 
nates  your  practice,  and  diftinguiihes  your  denomination. 
Your  practice,  and  not  your  name,  mould  difpleafe  you. 

You  intimate,  page  107,  that  I  fhall  oblige  you,  and  many 
of  your  denomination,  by  explaining  what  I  mean  by  ad- 
dreffing  Mr.  Anderibn,  Brother  Anderfon.  This  is  eafily 
done  :  by  it  I  mean  this — To  manifeft  my  belief  that  he  is 
born  of  the  Spirit,  notwithstanding  he  refufes  to  be  born  of 
water. 

In  the  clofe  of  your  Appendix,  you  appeal  from  all  au- 
thors, both  Greek  and  Roman,  from  Jerome,  Calvin,  and 
Dr.  Gill,  from  all  corruptions  and  fuperadditions  of  any 
church,  or  the  world,  to  that  good  book,  which  is  by  way  of 
eminence  called  the  word  of  God. 

In  the  laft  words  of  your  poftfcript,  you  make  a  formal 
appeal,  in  thefe  words — "  But  to  the  Bible,  Sir,  to  the  Bible." 
Hail  thou  appealed  unto  the  Bible  ?  unto  the  Bible  ihalt 
thou  go. 

Wifhing  you  a  full  hearing,  a  fair  trial,  and  your  errors  a 
juft  condemnation, 

I  am,  &c. 


7$  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Auftin.     [Let.  XII. 

LETTER   XII. 

REVEREND     SIR, 

HAST  thou  appealed  unto  the  BIBLE  ?   unto 
the  Bible  {halt  thou  go. 

Pleafe  to  attend  to  the  following,  and  the 
Bible  will  you  fee  for  Go/pel  Baptifm, 

Here,  Sir,  is  the  Bible  for  baptifm,  to  which  you  have 
appealed,  and  by  which  you  and  fome  of  your  works  are 
now  to  be  tried. 

The  following  are  all  the  texts  which  clearly  fpeak  of 
gofpel  baptifm. 

1.  Mat.  iii.  5,  6,  7.  Then  went  out  to  him  Jerufalem, 
and  all  Judea,  and  all  the  region  round  about  Jordan,  and 
were  baptized  of  him  in  Jordan  :  —  but  when  he  faw  many 
of  the  Pharifees  and  Sadducees  come  to  his  baptifm,  he 
faid,  &c. 

2.  Ver.  11.   I  indeed  baptize  you  with  water,  &c. 

3.  Ver.  13,  14,  15,  16.  Then  cometh  Jefus  from  Galilee 
to  Jordan  unto  John,  to  be  baptized  of  him  ;  but  John  for- 
bade him,  faying,  I  have  need  to  be  baptized  of  thee,  and 
comeft  thou  to  me  ?  And  Jefus  anfwering,  faid  unto  him, 
Suffer  it  to  be  fo  now  ;  for  thus  it  becometh  us  to  fulfil  all 
righteoufnefs :  then  he  fuffered  him.  And  Jefus,  when  he 
was  baptized,  went  up  ftraightway  out  of  the  water. 

4.  Chap.  xxi.  25,  26,  27.  The  baptifm  of  John,  whence 
was  it  ?  from  heaven  or  of  men  ?  And  they  rtafaned  with 
them/elves,  &C 

5.  Chap,  xxviii.  19.  Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  na- 
tions, baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  &c. 

6.  Mark  i.  4,  5.  John  did  baptize  in  the  wildernefs,  and 
preach  the  baptifm  of  repentance  for  the  remiffion  of  fins. 
And  there  went  out  unto  him  all  the  land  of  Judea,  and 
they  of  Jerufalem,  and  were  all  baptized  of  him  in  the  river 
©f  Jordan,  &c. 

7.  Ver.  8,  9,  10.  I  indeed  have  baptized  you  with  water. 
—  And  it  came  to  pafs  in  thofe  days,  that  Jefus  came  from 
Nazareth  of  Galilee,  and  was  baptized  of  John  in  Jordan. 
And  ftraightway,  coming  up  out  of  the  water,  &c. 

8.  Chap.  .xi.  30.  The  baptifm  of  John,  was  it  from 
heayen,  or  of  meji  ? 


Let.  XII.]      Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aujiin.  79 

9.  Chap.  xvi.  15,  16.  Andhefaid  unto  them,  Go  ye 
into  all  the  world,  and  preach  the  gofpel  to  every  creature. 
He  that  believeth,  and  is  baptized,  &c. 

10.  Luke  iii.  3.  And  he  came  into  all  the  country  about 
Jordan,  preaching  the  baptifm  of  repentance,  &c. 

11.  Ver.  7,  8.  Then  faid  he  to  the  multitude  that  came 
forth  to  be  baptized  of  him,  &c. 

12.  Ver.  12.  Then  came  alfo  publicans  to  be  baptized. 

13.  Ver.  16.  I  indeed  baptize  you  with  water. 

1 4.  Ver.  2 1 .  Now,  when  all  the  people  were  baptized,  it 
came  to  pafs,  that  Jefus  alfo  being  baptized,  &c. 

15.  Chap.  vii.  29,  30.  And  all  the  people  that  heard 
him,  and  the  publicans,  juftified  God,  being  baptized  with 
the  baptifm  of  John.  But  the  Pharifees  and  lawyers  rejected 
the  counfel  of  God  againft  themielves,  being  not  baptized 
of  him. 

!6.  Chap.  xx.  4.  The  baptifm  of  John,  was  it  from 
heaven,  or  of  men  ? 

17.  John  i.  25,  26.  Why  baptized  thou  then,  if  thou  be 
not  that  Chrift,  nor  Elias,  neither  that  prophet  ?  John  an- 
fwered  them,  faying,  I  baptize  with  water. 

if.     Ver.  28.  Beyond  Jordan,  where  John  was  baptizing. 

19.  Ver.  31.  That  he  mould  be  made  manifefl.  to  Ifrael, 
therefore  am  I  come  baptizing  with  water. 

20.  Ver.  33.  He  that  fent  me  to  baptize  with  water. 
ti.     Chap.  iii.  5.  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water,  and  of 

the  Spirit,  &c. 

22.  Ver.  22.  After  thefe  things  came  Jefus  and  his  dif- 
ciples  into  the  land  of  Judea ;  and  there  he  tarried  with 
them,  and  baptized. 

23.  Ver.  23.  And  John  alfo  was  baptizing  in  iEnon, 
near  to  Salim,  becaufe  there  was  much  water  there  j  and  they 
came,  and  were  baptized. 

24.  Ver.  26.  Behold,  the  fame  baptizeth,  and  all  men 
come  to  him. 

25.  Chap.  iv.  1,  2,  The  Pharifees  had  heard  that  Jefus 
made  and  baptized  more  difciples  than  John,  (though  Jefus 
himfelf  baptized  not,  but  his  difciples. ) 

26.  Chap.  x.  40.  Beyond  Jordan,  into  the  place  where 
John  at  raft  baptized. 

27.  Acts  i.  5.  John  truly  baptized  with  water. 

28.  Ver.  22.  Beginning  from  the  baptifm  of  John, 

29.  Chap.  ii.  38.  Then  Peter  faid  unto  them,  Repent, 
and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you  in  the  name  of  Jefus 
Chriit, — and  ye  mail  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghoft. 


80  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aujlin.      [Let.  XII. 

30.  Ver.  41.  Then  they  that  gladly  received  his  word 
were  baptized. 

31.  Chap.  viii.  12,  13.  But  when  they  believed  Philip 
preaching  the  things  concerning  the  kingdom  of  God,  and 
the  name  of  Jems  Chrift,  they  were  baptized,  both  men  and 
women.  Then  Simon  himielf  believed  alio  \  and  when  he 
was  baptized,  &c. 

32.  Ver.  16.  Only  they  were  baptized  in  the  name  of 
the  Lord  Jefus. 

33.  Ver.  36 — 39.  And  as  they  went  on  their  way  they 
came  unto  a  certain  water :  and  the  eunuch  faid,  See,  here 
is  water  :  what  doth  hinder  me  to  be  baptized  ?  And  Philip 
faid,  If  thou  believeil  with  all  thine  heart,  thou  mayeft. 
And  he  anfwered  and  faid,  I  believe  that  Jefus  Chrift  is  the 
Son  of  God.  And  he  commanded  the  chariot  to  ftand  dill : 
and  they  went  down  both  into  the  water,  both  Philip  and 
the  eunuch  ;  and  he  baptized  him.  And  when  they  were 
come  up  out  of  the  water,  &c. 

34.  Chap.  ix.  18.  And  he  (Saul)  arofe,  and  was  baptized. 
$5.     Chap.  x.  37.  After  the  baptifm  which  John  preached. 

36.  Ver.  47,  48.  Can  any  man  forbid  water,  that  thefe 
ihould  not  be  baptized,  which  have  received  the  Holy  Ghoft 
as  well  as  we  ?  And  he  commanded  them  to  be  baptized  in 
the  name  of  the  Lord. 

37.  Chap.  xi.  16.  John  indeed  baptized  with  water. 

38.  Chap.  xiii.  24.  When  John  had  firft  preached,  be- 
fore his  coming,  the  baptifm  of  repentance  to  all  the  people. 

39.  Chap.  xvi.  15.  And  when  ihe  (Lydia)  was  baptiz- 
ed, and  her  houfehold. 

40.  Ver.  ^^.  And  was  baptized,  he  (the  jailer)  and  all 
his,  ftraightway. 

41.  Chap,  xviii.  8.  And  many  of  the  Corinthians  hear- 
ing, believed,  and  were  baptized. 

42.  Ver.  25.  Pie  (Apollos)  fpake  and  taught  diligently 
the  things  of  the  Lord,  knowing  only  the  baptifm  of  John. 

43.  Chap.  xix.  3,  4,  5.  Unto  what  then  were  ye  bap- 
tized ?  And  they  faid,  Unto  John's  baptifm.  Then  faid 
Paul,  John  verily  baptized  with  the  baptifm  of  repentance, 
faying  unto  the  people,  That  they  mould  believe  on  him 
which  mould  come  after  him,  that  is,  on  Chrift  Jefus.  When 
they  heard  this,  they  were  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord 
Jefus. 

44.  Chap.  xxii.  16.  And  now,  why  tarried  thou?  arife, 
and  be  baptized,  and  ivajh  aivay  thy  fins,  calling  on  the 
«ame  of  the  Lord. 


Let.  XII.]      Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Anjlin.  81 

45-  Rom.  vi.  3,  4.  Know  ye  not,  that  fo  many  of  us  as 
were  baptized  into  Jeius  Chrift,  were  baptized  into  his  death  ? 
Therefore  we  are  buried  with  him  by  baptifm  into  death,  &c. 

46.  Ver.  5.  If  we  have  been  planted  together  in  the 
likenefs  of  his  death,  &c. 

47.  1  Cor.  i.  13 — 17.  Were  ye  baptized  in  the  name  of 
Paul  ?  I  thank  God  that  I  baptized  none  cf  you  but  Crifpus 
and  Gaius  ;  let  any  ihould  fay  that  I  had  baptized  in  mine 
own  name.  And  I  baptized  alio  the  houfehold  of  Stepha- 
nas :  befides,  I  know  not  whether  I  baptized  any  other. 
For  Chrifl  fent  me  not  to  baptize,  but  to  preach  the  gofpel. 

48.  Chap.  vi.  11.  But  ye  are  warned. 

49.  Chap.  xv.  29.  Elfe  what  (hall  they  do  which  are 
baptized  for  the  dead  I 

50.  Gal.  iii.  27.  For  as  many  of  you  as  have  been  bap- 
tized into  Chrift  have  put  on  Chriil. 

51.  Eph.  iv.  5.  One  baptifm. 

52.  Chap.  v.  26.  That  he  might  fan£Kfy  and  cleanfe  it 
{the  church)  with  the  waihing  of  water  by  the  word. 

53.  Col.  ii.  12.  Buried  with  him  in  baptifm,  wherein 
alfo  ye  are  rifen  with  him. 

54.  Titus  iii.  5.  According  to  his  mercy  he  faved  us,  by 
the  warning  of  regeneration,  6c c. 

55.  Heb.  x.  22.  Our  bodies  ivafhed  with  pure  water. 

56.  1  Peter  iii.  21.  The  like  figure  whereunto  even  bap- 
tifm doth  alfo  now  fave  us. 

Here,  my  dear  Sir,  you  have  in  plain  view  directly  before 
you  all  the  Bible,  fo  far  as  it  refpecls  the  matter  of  gofpel 
baptifm. 

The  court  to  which  you  have  appealed  is  now  opened. 
Now  felect  your  witneifes,  and  have  your  evidence  ready  ; 
for  to  trial  you  muft  come.  Every  text  is  allowed  to  be  a 
good  witnefs,  and  to  polfefs  evidence  fufficient  to  fet  the 
accufed  free,  upon  bearing  telVimony  in  his  favour. 

You  are  now,  Sir,  upon  your  trial  before  the  court  of 
Truth  ;  charged  with  violating  and  profaning  the  Jlrft  gofpel 
ordinance. 

Say  you,  Guilty  or  not  guilty  ?    You  fay,  Not  guilty. 

Then  the  trial  mull  proceed. 

Where  is  your  text,  your  witnefs,  which  by  example,  by 
precept,  or  by  intuitive  confequence,  teltifies  that  fprinklingt 
or  partial  <wajhing>  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghoft,  is  gofpel  baptifm.  Name  your  texts,  yotir  witneifes. 
Call  them  one  by  one.  Call  them  all,  if  you  pleafe. 
h   2 


§2  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aujl'in.     [Let.  XII. 

Mat.  iii.  5,  6,  7.  is  the  firft.  What  fays  this  witnefs  > 
Then  went  out  unto  him  Jerufalem,  and  Judea,  and  all  the 
region  round  about  Jordan,  and  were  baptized  of  him  in  Jor- 
dan, &c.  Call  all  the  other  witneffes,  from  Matthew  to  Peter. 
The  witneffes  having  been  feverally  called,  and  the  tefti- 
mony of  each  feparately  taken — 

Court.  You,  S.  A.  fuppofed  that  thefe  witnefles,  at  leaft 
fome  of  them,  would  have  fpoken  in  your  favour :  but  fup- 
pofnions  do  not  pafs  for  evidence  at  this  court.  What  have 
your  witneffes  teftified  ?  The  teftimony  of  each,  as  it  refpects  .' 
your  practice,  is  Tekel — Thou  art  weighed  in  the  balances,  and 
art  found  wanting. 

Now,  Sir,  for  the  trial  of  immerfion  for  gofpel  baptifrri. 
Call  the  witneffes  one  by  one.  The  witne/Tes  being  called, 
the  teftimony  of  each  is,  My  plain  and  common  fenfe  of  the 
cafe  is,  that  immerfion  is  gofpel  baptifm.  Call  fome  of  the 
witneffes  again.  Call  Mark  i.  5.  This  witnefs  teftifies,  that 
he  faw  John  baptizing  a  multitude  of  his  difciples  in  the 
'river  of  Jordan.  Call  Mark  i.  9.  The  teftimony  of  this 
witnefs  is,  that  he  faw  John  baptizing  the  Head  and  Hujband 
of  the  Church,  Jefus  Chrift,  in  Jordan;  and  that  he  faw 
him,  after  the  ordinance  was  adminiftered,  coming  upflraight- 
nvay  out  of  the  water.  Call  Heb.  x.  22.  This  witnefs  af- 
firmeth,  that  in  gofpel  baptifm  the  fubjects  had  their  bodies 
wafhed  with  pure  water.  Call  1  Peter  iii.  21.  The  teftU 
mony  of  this  witnefs  is,  that  as  Noah  was  faved  in  the  ark. 
from  a  drowning  world,  fo  are  the  baptized  faved  in  the 
water  from  a  burning  world  :  that  is,  baptifm  being  an  antt- 
lupon  or  figure,  anfwering  to  the  figure  the  ark,  it  figura- 
tively points  out  the  Saviour's  purpofe  of  faving  his  difciples 
from  a  fiery  deluge,  which  mail  burn  up  the  World  and 
deft roy  the  ungodly.  He,  therefore,  as  a  token  of  his  great 
kindnefs,  directs  that  they  be  put  all  under  water  in  baptifm  ; 
that  not  fo  much  as  an  hair  mould  be  finged,  or  the  fmell  of 
fire  pafs  on  them* 

Immerfion  being  tried,  is  found  perfectly  innocent,  and  is 
pronounced  to  be  the  matter  of  gofpel  baptifm. 

Shouldft  thou,  S.  A.  yet  hefitate  whether  fprinkling  may 
not,  in  fpecial  inftances,  be  allowed,  another  witnefs  muft  be 
again  called.  Call  Eph.  iv.  5.  One  Lord,  one  faith,  ont 
baptifm. 

Court.  Our  judgment  is,  that  the  error  of  S.  A.  hath  no 
countenance,  from  any  precept,  example,  or  fair  confe- 
cjuence,  from  any  thing  which  hath  been  faid  or  done  hj 
Jefus  Chrift,  or  any  of  his  infpired  fervants* 


Let.  XII.]        Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aujiin.  83 

HAST  thou  appealed  unto  the  BIBLE  ?  unto 
the  Bible  fhalt  thou  go. 

Pleafe  to  attend  to  the  following,  and  the 
Bible  you  will  fee  for  the  Subjects  of  Go/pel 
Baptifm.  ' 

Here,  Sir,  is,  if  I  miftake  not,  every  text  in  which  the 
Bible  manifeftly  defines  the  fubjefis  of  gofpel  baptifm. 

1.  Mat.  iii.  7,  8,  9.  When  he  faw  many  of  the  Pharifees 
and  Sadducees  come  to  his  baptifm,  he  faid  unto  them,  O 
generation  of  vipers  !  who  hath  warned  you  to  flee  from  the 
wrath  to  come  ?  Bring  forth,  therefore,  fruits  meet  for  re- 
pentance :  and  think  not  to  fay  within  yourfelves,  We  have 
Abraham  to  our  father. 

2.  Ver.  j  1.  I  indeed  baptize  you  with  water  unto  rc~ 
peniance.  • 

3.  Chap,  xxviii.  19.  Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  na- 
tions, baptizing  them  in  the  name,  &c. 

4.  Mark  i.  4,  5.  John  did  baptize  in  the  wildernefs,  and 
preach  the  baptifm  of  repentance  for  the  remiffion  of  fins. 
And  there  went  out  unto  him  all  the  land  of  Judea,  and 
they  of  Jerufalem,  and  were  all  baptized  of  him  in  the 
river  of  Jordan,  confejjing  their  Jins. 

5.  Chap.  xvi.  15,  16.  And  he  faid  unto  them,  Go  ye 
into  all  the  world,  and  preach  the  gofpel  to  every  creature. 
He  that  believeth,  and  is  baptized,  &c. 

6.  Luke  iii.  7,  8,  9.  Then  faid  he  to  the  multitude  that 
came  forth  to  be  baptized  of  him,  O  generation  of  vipers  ! 
who  hath  warned  you  to  flee  from  the  wrath  to  come  ?  Bring 
forth,  therefore,  fruits  worthy  of  repentance  ;  and  begin 
not  to  fay  within  yourfelves,  We  have  Abraham  to  our 
father.  —  And  now  alfo  the  axe  is  laid  unto  the  root  of  the 
treu*  &c. 

7.  Ver.  12.  Then  came  alfo  publicans  to  be  baptized, 
^nd  faid  unto  him,  Mailer,  what  mail  <we  do  ? 

8.  Chap.  vii.  29,  30.  And  all  the  people  that  heard  him, 
id  the  publicans,  juftified  God,  being  baptized  with  the 

baptifm  of  John.      But  the  Pharifees  and  lawyers  rejecled  the 
ccunfel  of  God  againfi  themfclves,  being  not  baptized  of  him. 

9.  John  iii.  5.  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water,  and  of 
the  Spirit,  &c. 

10.  Chap.  iv.  1,  Jefus  made  and  baptized  more  difciples 
than  John. 


§4  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Auftin.        [Let.  XII. 

11.  A&s  ii.  38.  Then  Peter  faid  unto  them,  Repent,  and 
be  baptized  every  one  of  you  in  the  name  of  Jems  Chrift,  for 
the  remijfion  of  fins,  and  ye  fliall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghoft. 

12.  Ver.  41.  Then  they  that  gladly  received  his  word 
were  baptized. 

13.  Chap.  viii.  12,  13.  But  when  they  believed  Philip 
preaching  the  things  concerning  the  kingdom  of  God,  and 
the  name  of  Jefus  Chrift,  they  were  baptized,  both  men  and 
women.  Then  Simon  himfelf  believed  alfo  ;  and  when  he 
was  baptized,  &c. 

14.  Ver.  36,  37.  What  doth  hinder  me  to  be  baptized  ? 
And  Philip  faid,  If  thou  believejl  with  all  thine  heart,  thou 
mayeft.  And  he  (the  eunuch)  anfwered  and  faid,  I  believe 
that  Jefus  Chrift  is  the  Son  of  God. 

1 5.  Chap,  x.  48.  Can  any  man  forbid  water,  that  thefe 
fhould  not  be  baptized,  which  have  received  the  Holy  Ghojl 
as  well  as  we  ? 

16.  Chap.  xiii.  24.  When  John  had  firft  preached,  be- 
fore his  coming,  the  baptifm  of  repentance  to  all  the  peopU. 

17.  Chap.  xvi.  14,  15.  A  certain  woman  named  Lydia, 
a  feller  of  purple,  of  the  city  of  Thyatira,  who  ivor/hipped 
God,  heard  us  ;  whofe  heart  the  Lord  opened,  that  (lie 
attended  unto  the  things  which  were  fpoken  of  Paul.  And 
when  Ine  was  baptized,  and  her  houfehold.  &c. 

18.  Ver.  33, ..34.  And  was  baptized,  he  (the  jailer)  and 
all  his,  (traightway.  And  when  he  had  brought  them  into 
his  houfe,  he  let  meat  before  them,  and  rejoiced,  believing  in 
Gad  with  all  his  hnufe. 

19.  Chap,  xviii.  8.  And  many  of  the  Corinthians  hear- 
ing, believed,  and  were  baptized. 

20.  Chap.  xix.  4,  5.  John  verily  baptized  with  the  baptifm 
of  repentance,  faying  unto  the  people,  That  they  jhould  believe 
on  him  which  mould  come  after  him,  that  is,  on  Chrift  Jefus. 
When  they  heard  this,  they  were  baptized,  &c. 

21.  Chap.  xxii.  16.  And  now,  why  tarriejl  thou  ?  arife, 
and  be  baptized,  and  ivafh  away  thy  fins,  calling  on  the 
name  of  the  Lord. 

22.  Rom.  vi.  3,  4.  Know  ye  not,  that  fo  many  of  us  as 
were  baptized  into  Jefus  Chrift  were  baptized  into  his  death  ? 
Therefore  we  are  buried  with  him  by  baptifm  into  death  ; 
that  like  as  Chrift  was  raifed  up  from  the  dead  by  the  glory 
of  the  Father,  even  fo  we  alfo  ihould  walk  in  newnefs  of  life. 

23.  Gal.  iii.  27.  For  as  many  of  you  as  have  been  bap- 
tized into  Chrift  have  put  on  Chrift. 


Let.  XII.]      Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aaftin*  85 

24.  1  Peter  iii.  21.  The  like  figure  whereunto  even  bap- 
tifm  doth  now  fave  us,  (not  the  putting  away  of  the  filth  of 
the  flefh,  but  the  anfiuer  of  a  good  confcience  toward  God,) 
by  the  refurrection  of  Jefus  Chrift. 

Here,  Sir,  you  behold,  in  full  view,  the  court  to  which 
you  have  appealed,  to  be  again  in  feftion. 

Before  this  court  you,  Sir,  ftand  indicted  for  the  following 
high  crimes  or  mifdemeanors  :  1.  For  teaching  the  people 
to  mifunderftand  the  laws  of  Chrift's  kingdom  :  2.  For  do- 
ing what  you  could  to  bring  into  this  kingdom  thofe  who 
have  no  gofpel  liberty  to  come:  '3.  For  fome  public  at- 
tempts to  prolong  and  to  increafe  the  blindnefs  of  many,  as 
to  the  fubjects  of  gofpel  baptifm. 

You  are  now  fet  before  the  court  of  Truth  for  your  trial. 

What  fay  you  to  the  indictment  ?    Guilty,  or  not  guilty  I 

Anf  ..  Not  guilty. 

Then  you  muft  be  proved  guilty. 

You,  as  a  teacher  of  the  gofpel,  have  taught  the  people, 
that  the  children  of  believers  were  to  be  baptized,  on  ac- 
count of  their  parents'  faith. 

Court.  Read  the  laws  of  Chrift's  kingdom.  The  .laws 
being  read — Not  a  word  is  found  for  you,  but  much  againft 
you ;  particularly  the  ftatutes  recorded  Mat.  iii.  7,  8,  9. 
Luke  iii.  7,  8,  9.  and  in  feveral  other  places :  you,  there- 
fore, ftand  convicted  of  the  firfl  claufe  of  the  indictment. 

As  to  the  fecond  claufe  of  the  indictment — you  have  bap- 
tized or  iprinkled  infants  and  unbelieving  children,  and  thus 
intentionally  brought  them  into  Chrift's  kingdom,  or  done 
what  you  could  to  place  them  there. 

Court.  You  confefs  the  fact,  but  plead  that  the  laws  of 
Chrift's  kingdom  enjoin  the  practice.  Read  the  laws,  that 
the  perfon  on  trial  may  be  convicted  from  the  mouth  of  the 
law.  The  laws  are  read — Not  a  word  is  found  for  infant 
baptifm,  baptifm  for  believers'  children,  or  for  unbelievers' 
baptifm  of  any  kind.  The  law  fpeaks  of  the  baptifm  of 
believers,  and  gives  liberty  for  none  befides.  Hence,  you 
ftand  convicted  of  practifmg  the  traditions  of  men :  which 
was,  for  fubftance,  the  fecond  claufe  of  the  indictment. 

As  for  the  laft  claufe,  it  is  a  fact  of  fuch  public  notoriety, 
you  will  to  that  readily  plead  guilty  ;  otherwife,  your  Letters 
to  D.  M.  with  the  Appendix,  will  be  laid  before  the  court. 
What  fay  you  ?    Anf  Guilty. 

Court.  The  judgment  of  this  court  is,  that  thou,  S.  A.  art 
guilty,  in  both  matter  and  form,  as  ies  forth  in  the  indictment. 


$6  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Auftin.      [Xet.  XII. 

HAST  thou  appealed  unto  the  BIBLE  ?   unto 
the  Bible  {halt  thou  go. 

Pleafe  to  attend  to  the  following,  and  you  will 
fee  the  Bible  for  Communicants. 


The  Following,  if  I  miftake  not,  is  the  whole  Bible,  fo 
far  as  it  fpeaks  of  the  Lord's  fupper,  and  defines  the  quali- 
fications of  the  accepted  guefls. 

i.  Mat.  xxvi.  26,  27,  28.  And  as  they  were  eating, 
Jefus  took  bread,  and  blefled  it,  and  brake  it,  and  gave  it  to 
the  difciples,  and  faid,  Take,  eat ;  this  is  my  body.  And 
he  took  the  cup,  and  gave  thanks,  and  gave  it  to  them,  fay- 
ing, Drink  ye  all  of  it :  for  this  is  my  blood  of  the  new 
teftament,  which  is  ilied  for  many,  for  the  remiffion  of  fins. 

2.  Mark  xiv.  22,  23,  24.  And  as  they  did  eat,  Jefus 
took  bread,  and  blefTed,  and  brake  it,  and  gave  to  them, 
and  faid,  Take,  eat;  this  is  my  body.  And  he  took  the 
cup,  and  when  he  had  given  thanks  he  gave  it  to  them,  and 
they  all  drank  of  it :  and  he  faid  unto  them,  This  is  pay- 
blood  of  the  new  teftament,  which  is  fhed  for  many* 

3.  Luke  xsii.  19,  20.  And  he  took  bread,  and  gave 
thanks,  and  brake  it,  and  gave  unto  them,  faying,  This  is 
my  body,  which  is  given  for  you  :  this  do  in  remembrance 
of  me.  Like  wife  alfo  the  cup,  after  fupper,  faying,  This 
cup  is  the  new  teftament  in  my  blood,  which  is  fhed  for  you. 

4.  Acts  ii.  41,  42.  Then  they  that  gladly  received  his 
word  were  baptized:  and  the  fame  day  there  were  added 
unto  them  about  three  thoufand  fouls.  And  they  continued 
ftedfaftly  in  the  apoftles'  doctrine  and  fellowfhip,  and  in 
breaking  of  bread,  and  in  prayers. 

5.  Ver.  46,  47.  And  they,  continuing  daily  with  one 
accord  in  the.  temple,  and  breaking  bread  from  houfe  to 
houfe.  —  And  the  Lord  added  to  the  church  daily  fuch  as 
ihould  be  faved. 

6.  Chap.  xx.  7,  n.  And  upon  the  firft  day  of  the  week, 
when  the  difciples  came  together  to  break  bread,  Paul 
preached  unto  them,  ready  to  depart  on  the  morrow  ;  and 
continued  his  fpeech  until  midnight.  When  he  had  broken 
iread,  and  eaten,  and  talked  a  long  while,  even  till  break  of 
day,  fo  he  departed. 

7.  1  Cor.  x.  16,  17.  The  cup  of  bleflmg  which  we  blefs, 
is  it  not  the  communion  of  the  blood  of  Chrift  ?    the  bread 


Let.  XII.  ]      Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Auftin.  87 

which  we  break,  is  it  not  the  communion  of  the  body  of  Chrift  ? 
For  we,  being  many,  are  one  bread,  and  one  body  :  for  <we 
ure  all  partakers  of  that  one  bread. 

8.  Chap.  xi.  16,  20.  But  if  any  man  feem  to  be  conten- 
tious, we  have  no  fuch  cuftom,  neither  the  churches  of  God. 
When  ye  come  together,  therefore,  into  one  place,  this  is 
not  to  eat  the  Lord's  fupper. 

9.  Ver.  23 — 29.  For  I  have  received  of  the  Lord  that 
which  alfo  I  delivered  unto  you — That  the  Lord  Jefus,  the 
fame  night  in  which  he  was  betrayed,  took  bread  :  and  when 
he  had  given  thanks  he  brake  it,  and  faid,  Take,  eat ;  this 
is  my  body,  which  is  broken  for  you :  this,  do  in  remem- 
brance of  me.  After  the  fame  manner  alfo  he  took  the  cup, 
when  he  had  flipped,  faying,  This  cup  is  the  new  teflament 
in  my  blood :  this  do  ye,  as  oft  as  ye  drink  it,  in  remem- 
brance of  me.  For  as  often  as  ye  eat  this  bread,  and  drink 
this  cup,  ye  do  mew  the  Lord's  death  till  he  come.  Where- 
fore, whomever  fhall  eat  this  bread  and  drink  this  cup  of  the 
Lord  unworthily,  fhall  be  guilty  of  the  body  and  blood  of 
the  Lord.  But  let  a  man  examine  himfelf,  and  fo  let  him 
eat  of  that  bread,  and  drink  of  that  cup.  For  he  that  eateth 
and  drinketh  unworthily,  eateth  and  drinketh  damnation  to 
himfelf,  not  difcerning  the  Lord's  body. 

Here,  Sir,  you  behold  the  court  to  which  you  have  ap- 
pealed, once  more  convened,  for  your  trial. 

You  now  ftand  before  this  court,  to  anfwer  to  the  follow- 
ing indictment. 

Thou  art  accufed  of  having  infinuated,  before  the  friends 
and  enemies  of  king  Jefus,  that  he  hath  left  the  order  of  his 
houfe  and  worfhip  at  fuch  loofe  ends,  that  it  cannot  be  de« 
termined,  from  the  rules  given,  in  what  order  the  two  great 
gofpel  ordinances  are  to  be  adminiftered — whether  the  firft 
laft,  or  the  laft  firft  ;  or  whether  it  be  of  any  confequence 
which  fhall  have  the  priority  :  that  is,  whether  baptifm  fhall 
precede  the  Lord's  fupper,  or  the  Lord's  fupper  precede 
baptifm  ;  or  whether  it  be  of  confequence  which  fhall  be  firft. 

Counfellor.  Sir,  every  dictate  of  prudence  ftrongly  fug- 
gefts  to  you,  that  your  wifdom  is,  to  plead  guilty,  and  caft 
yourfelf  upon  the  mercy  of  the  court.  Should  you  not,  out 
of  your  own  mouth  you  will  be  condemned.  Your  Letters 
to  D.  M.  and  your  Appendix,  both  pronounce  you,  Guilty, 
guilty. 

Court.     What  fay  you  ?    Guilty,  or  not  guilty  ? 

jlnf.      Guilty. 


88  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Auftin.      [Let.  XII. 

Court.  Read  all  the  King's  laws  which  relate  to  the 
fubject,  for  the  violation  of  which  S.  A.  hath  been  here  in- 
dicted, and  .to  which  indictment  he  pleads  guilty  ;  that  if  he 
will  {how  himfelf  an  honeft  man,  he  may  be  no  more  ar- 
raigned before  us  for  any  fimilar  mifdemeanors.  Read 
diftinctly  <  Mat.  xxvi.  26,  27,  28.  Mark  xiv.  22,  23.  &c. 
Do  ft  thou,  S.  A.  fee,  and  perfectly  under  ftand,  that  there  is 
no  law,  ftatute,  or  claufe,  which  affords  the  lead  poffible 
plea,  that  any  ever  was,  or  of  right  mould  be,  admitted  to 
the  table  of  the  Lord,  before  he  fubmitted  to  the  ordinance 
of  baptifm  ?  and  that  the  order  of  Chrift's  houfe  is  plainly 
fet  forth  ?  Is  farther  light  needed  ?  read  Luke  vii.  29,  30  ; 
read  alfo  Luke  i.  17.  where  John's  work  is  defcribed  to  be 
to  make  ready  a  people  prepared  for  the  Lord.  Read  alfo 
what  took  place  whilit  John  was  making  ready  this  people, 
and  preparing  them  for  the  Lord,  Mat.  iii.  1 — 6.  John 
preached  repentance,  and  the  baptifm  of  repentance,  and 
baptized  them  in  the  river  of  Jordan.  Read  again,  Acts 
ii.  41,  42.  They  that  gladly  received  his  word  were  bap- 
tized, &c. 

Court.  Thou,  S.  A.  haft  been  indicted  before  this  court — 
i.  For  having  perverted  the  gofpel  baptifm,  by  changing 
it  for  fprinkling,  an  invention  of  men — 2.  For  pleading  that 
you,  and  confequently  that  your  children,  have  Abraham  to 
your  father,  and  that  on  this  account  they  were  fit  fubjects 
of  gofpel  baptifm,  and  that  in  this  way  thou  haft  violated 
the  laws  of  Chrift,  as  to  the  fubjects  of  baptifm — 3.  For 
having  impeached  the  honour  of  the  Chriftian  Lawgiver,  by 
teaching  that  matters  were  left  by  him  at  uncertainties,  what 
and  how  things  fhould  be  do'ne  in  his  houfe  and  kingdom, 
the  church,  and  for  feveral  other  collateral  offences.  Thou 
didft  well  by  appealing  to  this  court,  that  thou  mighteft  have 
a  full  hearing,  and  receive  judgment  without  partiality. 
This  court  having  taken  every  part  of  each  trial,  had  before 
them,  into  full  confideration,  find  thee,  S.  A.  guilty  *,  guilty^ 
guilty,  as  fet  forth  in  the  feveral  indictments.  The  fentence 
which  the  court  mall  inflict  on  thee,  will  not  be  publickly 
pronounced  this  day :  the  court,  however,  from  motives  of 
compaffion,  fee  fit  to  inform  thee,  that  Inould  repentance, 
manifefted  by  reformation,  be  found  in  thee,  their  fentende 
will  be  mixed  with  very  much  mercy. 

Thou  art  now  permitted  to  go,  for  a  few  days,  whither 
thou  wilt,  and  no  man  fhall  hurt  thee,  provided  thou  haft 
continually  about  thee  the  King's  laws,  which  thou  haft 
violated,  and  do  not  openly  tranfgrefs  them  in  future. 


Let.  XH.]      Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Auftin.  S9 

The  principal  part  of  what  I  purpofed  to  fay  to  you,  Sir, 
in  the  public  hearing,  I  have  now  faid  :  you  muft,  however, 
permit  me  to  fay  a  few  tilings  more. 

Among  the  many  things  which  might  be  mentioned  to 
profit,  the  following  only  will  find  place  for  the  prefent. 

1.  It  is  worthy  of  the  reader's  particular  obfervation,  that 
you  have  not  found  fo  much  as  one  text,  which  fays  fo  much 
as  one  word  about  fprinkling  as  being  gofpel  baptifm ;  not 
one  precept,  not  one  example,  nor  one  plain  confequence, 
which  mows  fprinkling  to  be  from  heaven  :  and  had  you  not 
forbidden  me  to  go  to  Rome,  I  could  have  mown  that 
fprinkling  for  baptifm  was  one  of  the  children  of  the  man  of 
fin.  It  mud  appear  a  lingular  matter,  to  every  perfon  of 
difcernment,  that  you  mould  forbid  me  to  go  to  the  ancient 
fathers,  to  prove  your  practice  to  be  of  men,  when  you,  at 
the  fame  time,  take  the  liberty  to  bring  in  the  modern 
fathers,  to  mow  your  doctrine  from  heaven.  Do  you  not 
know,  Sir,  that  in  this  particular  you  have  exactly  imitated 
the  pope  and  his  clergy  ?  They  would  not  fubmit  to  have 
their  errors  confronted  by  the  writings  of  the  ancient  fathers, 
but  they  would  prove  the  purity  of  their  prefent  practice, 
becaufe  his  holinefs  the  pope,  and  his  holy  catholic  churchy 
have  thus  practifed  for  many  years. 

2.  It  is  not  unworthy  of  critical  attention,  why  you  have 
not,  and  why  you  cannot,  produce  one  Scripture  precept, 
example,  or  fair  confequence,  to  prove  that  ever  one  infant, 
child,  or  fervant,  or  foldier,  was  baptized  upon  the  faith  of 
another,  or  becaufe  the  parent,  mafter,  captain,  or  fome 
other  perfon  believed.  The  reafon  why  you  produced  no 
fcripture  which  was  to  your  point,  is  but  too  manifeft  ;  you 
had  none  to  bring. 

.3.  Another  consideration  you  are  defired  to  take  into  feri- 
ous  and  immediate  contemplation :  it  is  this — You  are  ac- 
countable, not  to  men  only,  but  to  the  Lord,  for  your  fup- 
pofititious  attempts  to  keep  the  ignorant  and  credulous  in 
the  belief  and  practice  of  their  fuperftitious  and  antichrif- 
tian  traditions.  If  you  have  any  thing  in  favour  of  infant 
fprinkling,  or  infant  baptifm,  which  can  bear  the  light  of 
truth,  we  wifn  you  to  uiher  it  forth  to  public  view  as  foon 
as  poffible  :  but  if  you  have  nothing  but  conjectures,  fuppo- 
fitions,  and  dubious,  uncertain  confequences,  we  wifh  you 
to  let  them  fleep  in  their  native  darknefs  ;  for  as  often  as 
you,  or  your  brethren,  make  fuch  dark  and  benighted  at- 
tempts, to  palm  upon  the  Cbriftian  world  the  inventions  of 


$o  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Auftin.      [Let.  XIL 

ynen  for  the  ordinances  of  Heaven,  you  reproach  your  Maker. 
His  ordinances  and  pofitive  institutions  never  did,  do  not 
now,  and  never  will,  ftand  in  need  of  fuch  blind  arguments 
to  give  them  currency;  the  bare  fuppofition  that  they  do, 
is  a  reflection  upon  his  benevolence,  or  upon  his  wifdom. 

4.  Another  thought  I  wilh  to  fuggeft,  for  your  considera- 
tion :  it  is  this — Should  you  be  diifatisfied  with  the  judg- 
ment which  the  Scriptures  have  paffed  upon  your  traditionary 
practices,  you  are  defired  to  remember,  that  by  them  you  and 
your  works  are  to  be  tried  ;  and  happy  for  you,  if  your  works 
only  mail  be  burnt  up.  It  will  be  for  you  but  a  poor  plea, 
at  the  judgment,  to  fay,  Many,  of  reputation,  believed  and 
praclifed  with  you.  You  have  appealed  to  the  Bible  ;  if  you 
will  hearken  to  it,  it  will  be  well ;  otherwife,  the  blood  of 
many  may  be  required  at  your  hands.  I  fmcerely  with  that 
you  may  repent  of  your  deeds,  and  yet  be  a  burning  and  a 
ihining  light  in  fome  golden  candleftick.  Not  that  you 
might  believe  as  I  do,  but  that  you  might  believe  and  prac- 
tife  as  the  gofpel  enjoins,  and  no  more  wound  the  fujfering 
jlock  of  God,  and  caufe  the  daughters  of  the  uncircumcifed 
to  rejoice,  and  the  hypocrites  and  unbelievers  to  triumph 
over  the  church. 

What  yet  remains  to  be  laid  before  you,  is  a  few  deduc- 
tions or  confequences  from  what  we  have  paffed  over. 

1 .  The  fum  total  of  your  arguments  againft  the  reafon- 
ings  in  my  Sermons,  is  a  collection  of  Juppojitions^  which  you 
fay  are  miferable  arguments. 

2.  Your  Examination  of  my  Sermons  hath  a  tendency  to 
lengthen,  and  perhaps  to  augment,  the  difference  between 
your  denomination  and  the  Baptifts ;  but  it  hath  no  direct  , 
aptitude  towards  fettling  the  difpute.  The  Baptifts  are, 
generally  fpeaking,  determined  to  abide  by  the  judgment  of 
the  court  of  truth  ;  before  which  both  your  pamphlet  and 
your  practice  have  been  tried  and  condemned. 

3.  Another  confequence  is,  that  you  have  darkened  the 
counfel  of  the  Lord  by  words  without  knowledge  :  this  is  the 
beft  which  we  can  fay  of  your  performance,  feeing  by  it  you 
have  attempted  to  turn  us  from  the  right  ways  of  the 
Lord. 

4.  Another  confequence  is,  you  have,  fo  far  as  you  could, 
taken  from  the  people  the  key  of  knowledge,  by  reprefenting 
plain  truths  in  fuch  a  wrong  manner,  as  to  lead  your  preju- 
diced readers  to  believe,  that  there  is  very 'little  or  no  truth 


Let.  XII.]      Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aujiin.  91 

revealed,  as  to  the  important  fubjects  on  which  you  have 
written. 

5.  You  have  implicitly  contradicted  the  Bible,  in  that  you 
have  obvioufly  intimated  that  there  are  divers  kinds-  of 
Chriftian  baptifms,  when  the  Bible  fays,  One  baptifm. 

6.  It  appears  that  you  have  done  what  you  could  to  re- 
move the  land-mark  of  the  King  of  Ifrael :  you  have,  with- 
out authority,  and  contrary  from  the  plain  tenor  of  the  New 
Teftament,  informed  us,  that  perfons  may  be  members  of 
the  vilible  church  of  Chrift,  and  not  yet  baptized.  Befides, 
you  have  fpoken  lightly,  or  at  lead  very  inconfiderately,  of 
the  divine  rite  of  Chriftian  baptifm;  you  have  treated  it  as 
being,  in  a  great  degree,  an  uncertain  and  unimportant  or- 
dinance. 

7.  Another  confequence  is,  that  unlefs  your  traditionary 
rite  of  fprinkling,  your  tradition  of  infant  baptifm,  and  your 
newly  invented  Jcheme  of  admitting  nnbapti%ed  perfons  to  the 
Lord's  table,  can  obtain  a  ftronger  fupport  than  your  fup- 
pofitions,  or  others  like  them,  they  will  all  of  them  be  treated 
as  intruders,  and  relics  of  popery,  fo  far  as  truth  fhall  obtain 
a  xandid  hearing. 

8.  You  and  your  denomination  not  only  reject  the  coun- 
sel of  God  againft  yourfelves,  being  not  baptized,  and  fo 

will  not  enter  into  the  vifible  kingdom  of  Chrift,  but  them 
who  are  entering  in  ye  hinder. 

9.  Another  deduction,  which  appears  naturally  to  flow 
from  what  hath  been  faid,  is,  that  had  you  been  on  Bible 
ground,  the  Scriptures  would  not  have  failed  you  on  every 
point,  fo  as  not  to  have  lent  you  one  fair  argument,  either 
from  precept  or  fact,  or  from  intuitive  confequence.  But, 
Sir,  the  fact  is  too  notorious  for  you  honourably  to  deny  it, 
that  you  have  not  even  fo  much  as  one  fair  argument  from 
the  Bible,  (and  you  have  appealed  to  it,)  to  fupport  either 
fprinkling,  infant  baptifm,  or  unbaptized  church  members, 
or  for  communion  with  thofe  who  reject  the  counfel  of  God 
againft  themfelves,  being  not  baptized,  only  fprinkled  ac- 
cording to  man's  inventions. 

10.  The  reafon  why  you  and  many  others  have  had  fo 
much  difficulty  in  preventing  Chriftians  of  their  focieties 
from  embracing  immerfion,  as  gofpel  baptifm,  is  becaufe  it 
is  fo  plainly  taught  in  the  Bible.  We  likewife  fee.  the  foun- 
dation of  your  difficulty,  in  fatisfying  your  hearers  that 
fprinhling)  man's  fubflitute  for  baptifm,  will  anfwer  for  the  firfl 
Chriftian  ordinance :  it  is  this — nothing  is  found  in  the  Bible 


92  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aiiftin*      [Let.  XIF, 

for  this  fprinkling  fubftitute,  which  is  faft  going  into  dif- 
lepute  ;  it  will  foon  be  in  perpetual  difgrace. 

ii.  Another  deduction  is,  that  the  public  fhould  be  adver- 
tized, that,  fhould  you  prefent  them  with  your  propofed 
volume,  they  are  not  to  expect,  that  when  you  treat  on  bap- 
tifm,  on  the  fubjects  of  baptifm,  or  on  unbaptized  church 
members,  or  on  unbaptized  communicants,  that  you  will 
produce  one  plain  text  from  the  Bible,  to  prove  your  fenti- 
ments  correct ;  but  that  they  will  probably  find  many  texts, 
which  have  no  direct  connexion  with  either  of  the  fubjects, 
produced  to  prove  each,  refpectively ;  for  the  public  ought 
not  to  expect  impbffibilities :  and  as  the  Bible  is  totally,  totally 
filent,  as  to  countenancing  either  of  the  fubjects,  which  you 
expect  to  i«t  in  a  clear  point  of  view,  no  text,  direct  for  eithep 
of  them,  can  juftly  be  looked  for. 

You  do,  indeed,  Sir,  appear  to  me  to  po/Tefs  a  curious 
pofition :  for  you  would  make  a  lingular  figure  before  the 
public,  fhould  you  go  to  Greece  or  Rome,  to  popes  or  car- 
dinals, councils  or  conclaves  for  evidence,  fmce  you  have 
forbidden  me  to  argue  from  any  fimilar  fource  ;  and,  at  the 
fame  time,  you  have  appealed  to  the  Bible,  and  that  hath 
nothing  to  fay  for  you,  directly  or  Indirectly:  you  find 
nothing  for  you  there,  but  filence  on  the  one  hand,  and  on 
the  other  many  precepts  and  examples,  enjoining  it  upon 
you  to  change  both  your  words  and  practice.  In  this  pofi- 
tion, and  thus  circumitanced,  you  are  jufl  publifhing  a  vol- 
ume to  rectify  raiftakes,  and  to  fet  thefe  controverted  fubjects 
in  a  clear  point  of  view.  You  certainly  would  do  well  to 
confult  the  Bible,  and  take  advice  of  the  Scriptures,  before 
you  proceed  any  farther.  Curfed  be  he  that  handkth  the 
word  of  God,  or  doeth  his  work,  deceitfully. 

Lajlly.  Another  confequence  is,  that  every  perfon  mar 
confider  himfelf  to  be  again  at  full  liberty  to  read  my  Seven 
Sermons,  if  he  pleafe  :  for  .though  there  be  but  little  of  argu- 
ment in  them,  yet  your  Examination  is  found  not  to  be  able 
to  difprove  that  little.  It  is,  therefore,  obvious  that  they 
poffefs  as  much  of  argument  as  they  ever  did,  together  with 
this  advantageous  circumftance,  that .  they  have,  without 
receiving  material  injury,  fuftained  the  firft  public  general 
attack.  Nor  will  you,  or  any  of  your  denomination,  be 
ever  able  to  deftroy  the  immovable  lafis  on  which  the  prin- 
cipal arguments  in  my  Sermons  are  founded.  Their  foun- 
dation is  the  broad  bafis  of  revelation.    Would  you  maintain 


Let.  XII.]      Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Auftin.  93 

your  ground,  In  this  day  of  light,  liberty,  and  inquiry,  it  would 
probably  be  your  wifdom,  to  be  as  totally  filent,  as  to  any 
mention  of  your  errors,  as  the  Scriptures  are  with  relation 
tso  any  defence  of  them. 

With  grief  for  your  errors, 
with  affeclion  for  your  perfon, 

with  efteem  for  your  general  character, 
and  defires  for  your  fpeedy  reformation, 
I  am,  dear  Sir,  fmcerely  yours, 

DANIEL  MERRILL. 


A  few  words  for  Rev,  Samuel  Worcester^ 
of  S/f/em. 


THE  author  of  the  foregoing  Letters  does  mod  fincerely  regret,  that 
any  perfonal  and  public  abufe  and  obloquy  fhould  be  reforted  to  by 
Mr.  Worcefter,  of  Salem,  in  defence  of  the  prefent  very  interefting  and 
folemn  controverfy.  He  alfo  fincerely  regrets,  that  the  fame  Mr.  Wor- 
cefter fhould  publifh  to  the  world  feveral  unfounded  afTertions,  or  great 
mifreprefentations,  that  he  might  in  this  way  fupport  his  unftable  caufe. 
Truth  wants  no  fuch  auxiliaries,  and  error  cannot  be  always  fupported 
by  them.  -  \ 

The  following  are  confidered  to  be  unfounded  afTertions,  or  great  mif- 
reprefentations. 

i.  Says  Mr.  Worcefter,*  "  Even  the  author  of  Seven  Sermons,  on  the 
mode  and  fubjecls  of  baptifm,  defires  to  thank  God  that  he  knows  the 
Greek  as  ivell  as  any  man." 

%.  The  fame  Mr.  Worcefter  informs  the  public,f  that  the  "  author  of 
Letters  to  Mr.  Anderfon,  has  not  only  gratuitoujly  coined,  and  contemptuoufly 
beftowed  upon  us  a  new  name,  but  becaufe  he  found  that  John,  the  har- 
binger of  Chrift,  is  called  a  Baptift,  very  fhrewdly  concludes  thofe  who 
were  baptized  by  John  were  alfo  Baptifts,  &c. ;  but  upon  being  afked, 
by  the  author  oitbefe  difcourfes,  whether  the  term  Baptift  was  applied  to 
John  in  the  fame  fenfe  in  which  it  is  now  applied  to  thofe  who  are  called 
Baptifts,  he  confejfed  the  truth,  and  faid  it  ivas  not" 

3.  The  fame  Mr.  Worcefter  tells  us,  page  6a,  that  "  the  fame  reafon- 
ing,  if  reafonlng  it  muji  be  called,  by  which  it  was  fuppofed  to  be  proved 
that  the  Waldenfes,  Wickliffites,  Huffites,  and  other  witneffes  for  the  truth- 
in  the  dark  ages,  were  Antipjedobaptifts,  would  equally  prove  that  the 
Tabernacle  church  are  Antipaedobaptifts.  This  the  writer  of  the  Minia- 
ture Hiftory  has  himfelf  been  brought  to  acknowledge" 

Had  thefe  unfounded  afTertions,  or  great  mifreprefentations,  of  Mr,, 
Worcefter's,  affected  merely  the  private  character  and  feelings  of  him 
whom  they  implicate,  he  might  have  left  them,  after  denying  their  cor- 
ye&nefs,  to  the  future  confideration  of  Mr.  Worcefter,  and  to  the  juft 
cenfure  of  every  candid  writer  and  reader  of  theological  difputation. 
But  when  a  public  teacher  of  religion  (hall  practife  fuch  kind  of  manage? 
ment,  to  prepoffefs  and  to  prejudice  the  minds  of  his  hearers  and  readeny 
againft  the  truth,  he  ought  to  expect  fome  fuitable  correction.  This  the 
author  of  the  Miniature  Hiftory,  and  of  the  Letters  to  Mr.  Anderfon, 
expects  to  endeavour,  as  foon  as  he  fhall  have  leifure.  In  the  mean  time, 
Mr.  Worcefter  is  called  upon  to  make  his  afTertions  good,  if  he  be  able  to  : 
he  is  defired,  however,  to  do  it  in  fuch  a  manner,  that  the  public  may  not 
confider  him  to  be  contending  wi(h  an  enemy,  nor  with  one  whom  he 
laay  with  impunity  treat  with  contempt. 

*  See  his  Difcourfes,  page  69. 
f  Difi«urfcs}page  66, 


C    95    3 

The  author  of  the  Miniature  Hiftory  takes  liberty  juft  to  obferve,  that 
lie  does  not  believe,  alfo  that,  he  never  did  believe,  and  that  he  never 
acknowledged,  that  the  fame  reafoning  by  which  the  Waldenfes,  &c.  were 
proved  to  be  Antipaed.ilaptifts,  would  prove  the  Tabernacle  church  in 
Salem  to  be  fo:  nor  did  he  ever  make  any  fimilar  conceflion,  but  upon 
fuppofition  that  this  proportion  oi  Mr.  Worcefter's  was  correcl: — That 
the  Tabernacle  church  held  to  the  fame  greal  and  leading  maxim  with  the 
Waldenfes,  &c. ;  which  the  author  confidered,  and  ftill  confiders,  to  he 
Mr.  Worcefter's  miftake. 

This  maxim  of  the  Waldenfes,  &c.  is,  "  That  the  kingdom  of  ChriJ?,  or 
the  vijible  church,  he  bad  efiablifhed  upon  earth,  luas  an  ajfembly  of  true  and 
real  faints,  and  ought,  therefore,  to  be  inacceffible  to  the  wicked  and  unrighteous^ 
and  alfo  exempt  from  all  thofe  infitutions  which  human  prudence  fuggefls,  f 
tppofe  the  progrefs  of  iniquity,  or  to  correcl  and  reform  tranfgrejfors" 

Let  Mr.  Worcefter  lhow,  if  he  can,  that  the  Tabernacle  church  adopt 
this  maxim,  not  in  part,  but  in  ivhole,  and  that  their  practice  does,  in 
facT:,  correfpond  with  it,  and  that  thoroughly ;  then  fhall  it  be  conceded 
to  him,  that,  fo  far  as  the  argument  depends  on  this  great  leading  maxim, 
the  fame  reafoning  which  proves  the  Waldenfes,  &c  to  be  Antipaedo- 
baptifts,  will  prove  the  Tabernacle  church  to  be  fo. 

The  author  of  Letters  to  Mr.  Anderfon  alfo  takes  liberty  to  obferve, 
that  his  fentiment  of  John's  being  called  the  Baptift  is,  that  he  was  thus 
called  becaufe  he  baptized,  and  that  every  Baptift  minifter  is  called  a  Bap- 
tift for  the  fame  identical  reafon  for  which  John  was  thus  called ;  and 
that  the  brethren  among  the  Baptifts  are  thus  called,  not  becaufe  they 
aie  baptizers,  but  becaufe  they  are  baptized. 

The  author  of  the  Seven  Sermons,  Miniature  Hiftory,  &c.  never  ut- 
tered or  publilhed  the  expreflion  in  the  firft  great  mifreprefentation  of 
Mr.  Worcefter,*  nor  made  conceiuons  or  acknowledgments  to  him,  but 
in  agreement  with  the  above  ftatement,  Mr.  Worcefter  will  account  to 
himfelf,  to  his  people,  and  to  the  public,  for  his  affertions,  in  the  beft 
manner  he  can. 

One  acknowledgment  I  moft  frankly  make  to  Mr.  Worcefter  :    it  is 
this — That  I  am  really  pained  that  he  hath  compelled  me  thus  publickly 
to  contradict  his  public  ftatements.     The  fault  is  his,  and  the  damage  he 
.  will  fuftain. 

The  AUTHOR. 
Sedgwick,  December  1$,  1805. 

*  I  may,  when  urged  by  blind  gainfayers,  have  J "aid  fome  thing  to  the  fot- 
hiving  purport — That  I  underfiood  the  Greek  words  which  relate  to  the  ordi- 
nance ofbaptifm,  as  well  as  do  the  oppofers  ;  but  never  did  I  fay,  or  intention' 
tllyfo  much  as  intimate,  <v»bat  Mr.  Worcefier  mofl  ungenerwjly  and  manife/lly 
thurges  to  my  acctunt. 


